Common Council

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMON COUNCIL MIDDLETOWN CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 2, 2017 MINUTES The Special Meeting, the Questions to Directors Workshop of the Common Council of the City of Middletown, was held in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Building on Monday, October 2, 2017, at 6:00 p.m. Present: Councilwoman Mary Bartolotta Councilwoman Deborah Kleckowski (6:40pm) Councilman Robert Blanchard (6:15pm) Councilman Eugene Nocera Councilman Carl R. Chisem Councilman Philip Pessina Councilman Gerald E. Daley Councilwoman Linda Salafia Councilman Grady L. Falkner, Jr.(6:10pm) Councilman Robert P. Santanagelo Councilman Sebastian N. Giuliano Councilman Thomas J. Serra Absent: Mayor Daniel T. Drew, Corporation Counsel Daniel B. Ryan, Councilman Eugene Nocera Also Present: Council Clerk -- Linda S.K. Reed Police -- Chief William McKenna Arts Coordinator -- Stephan Allison Public Works -- Director William Russo Communications -- Director Wayne Bartolotta Plan, Cons & Devel.-- Director Joseph Samolis Finance -- Director Carl Erlacher Republican Registrar of Voters -- David Bauer Finance -- Chief Mngt. Analyst Tina Gomes School Readiness Council -- Monica Belyea Fire Department -- Chief Robert Kronenberger School Readiness Liaison -- Dawn Dubay General Counsel -- Brig Smith, Esq. Technology Services -- Director Bryan Skowera Deputy General Counsel -- Kori Wisneski Tax Assessor -- Damon Braasch Equal Opp. & Diversity -- Director Faith Jackson Youth Services Coordinator -- Justin Carbonella Parking -- Director Geen Thazhampallath, Esq. Water & Sewer -- Acting Director Robert Young Members of the Public: 10 1. Call to Order Acting Chairman, Deputy Mayor Robert Santangelo, calls the meeting to order at 6:02pm and leads the public in the Pledge of Allegiance. The Clerk reads the Call of the Meeting and Deputy Mayor Santangelo declares call a legal call and meeting a legal meeting. Councilman Grady Faulkner, Jr. arrives at 6:10pm. Councilman Robert Blanchard arrives at 6:15pm. Councilwoman Deborah Kleckowski arrives at 6:40pm. 2. Questions to Directors Opens Deputy Mayor Santangelo opens the Questions to Directors Workshop at 6:05pm. OCTOBER 2, 2017 SPECIAL COMMON COUNCIL MEETING Page 2 Councilman Serra calls on Deputy General Counsel Kori Wisneski, Esq. and Finance Director Carl Erlacher regarding the Police contract. Councilman Serra notes that the Council has received the written contract summary. He asks Attorney Wisneski to summarize the tentative agreement and asks Finance Director Erlacher to explain the finances and final analysis. Attorney Wisneski states that she is appearing in support of the proposed tentative agreement between the City and Police Union, Local 1661, AFSCME, Council 4. She notes one of the main focuses in these negotiations was increasing insurance costs and trying to offset those costs with the OPEB (other post- employment benefits) trust contributions for employees. She states that this balance is achieved in this proposed agreement. Rather than two (2) insurance plans, there is now one (1) plan with a $20 co-pay. There have been some increases in other co-pays, premium costs shares, prescription drug costs, and a mandatory generic provision to offset increasing prescription costs. Relative to the OPEB, new employees will, as of July 1, 2017, contribute one percent (1%) of base pay to contribute to liabilities of the retiree health plan. There was a large focus on light duty and the Mayor’s Safety Committee. This contract focuses on getting employees back to work more quickly and on getting the union involved with and collaborating on the Safety Committee. Relative to longevity, benefit is removed for five (5) and 10 year employees and modestly increased for 15 and 20 year employees, which is trend citywide and statewide. It also takes into consideration the importance of keeping and maintaining an experienced force. Wages are based on a five (5) year duration with the contract in force until June 30, 2022. Over that five (5) year period, there is an average 2.5% wage increase. In addition, there was some housekeeping to update contract language and incorporate existing MOUs (Memorandum of Understanding). Councilman Serra asks Mr. Erlacher to speak to the cost of the contract and how the overall cost of $69,560 was calculated. Finance Director Erlacher states that the cost of the first year is 1.5%, which is already included in the budget in salary reserve item. He explains the COLA for all five (5) years as shown in summary. They have calculated the insurance savings based on plan changes, making it one plan with the managers and exempts as well as the 466 Employee Union. They are trying to tailor all the plans to be the same for economy of scale. By increasing some cost shares, it has generated some savings. As a result the total cost of the contract over the five (5) year period is $69K,000. By doing this, he states it is very fair and he speaks in favor of it. Councilman Serra asks if there is enough budgeted for this contract. Director Erlacher replies yes, that the major costs are the COLAs and they are covered. In the first year, it is under budget at 1.5 percent. There was two (2) to 2½ percent budgeted for the first year. Councilman Serra asks if this contract gets the City to the an appropriate place in the State ranking relative to the pay for police officers. He recalls that the City was in the bottom quarter top and was to move to the top quarter bottom. Attorney Wisneski replies that there is a summary in the presentation packet at page three (3), which shows how Middletown ranks against the average salaries negotiated. The Middletown settlement is slightly above average statewide of 2.3 percent, but that it is right there. Councilman Serra asks if, in terms of pay, this wage places Middletown in the middle Connecticut communities of comparable size. Attorney Wisneski replies yes, this is correct in terms of data from the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities. Deputy Mayor Santangelo recognizes Councilman Philip Pessina. Councilman Pessina calls on General Counsel, Brig Smith, Esq. OCTOBER 2, 2017 SPECIAL COMMON COUNCIL MEETING Page 3 Councilman Pessina states that, sitting on Harbor Improvement, he is aware of the latest changes in contract for the Lady Katharine. He asks Attorney Smith to explain that contract, which now includes adding docking fees that were not part of the original contract. Attorney Smith explains that Councilman Pessina is referring to the email, which he sent to all Councilmembers. Attorney Smith explains that Councilman Pessina is referring to the provision in the lease, which allows the City to impose docking fees as set by the Harbor Master. He notes that it appears that the docking fees have never been set. He notes that Councilwoman Kleckowski noted that the Lady Katharine was paying upwards of $10,000 in docking fees to Hartford. Attorney Smith states that it is not entirely clear to him how Hartford assesses that fee, but notes that Middletown’s ordinances reference Connecticut General Statutes §22a-113s, which provides that anchoring and mooring fees are to be no more than $200 annually. As a result, he describes the provisions in the proposed lease, noting that Essex Steam Train seems to be okay with the concept; that is, the $200 docking fee should be just fine. In short, it puts in black and white what has been gray for many years. Councilman Pessina states that he understands from what Councilwoman Kleckowski noted is that there is apparently a huge disparity: $10,000 in Hartford and $200 in Middletown, which seems to be a very low rate. He acknowledges all the Lady Katharine brings to the City, and asks if there is any way that we can address this low rate. Councilman Pessina states that it seems that this issue has slipped past Harbor Committee; that is, the docking fees are so low. He asks Attorney Smith if there is any way to address this fee structure. Attorney Smith replies that there are a couple of items. First, the Lady Katharine is under new ownership with the Valley Railroad/Essex Steam Train. They are coming in and taking over, looking to do partnership with the City. It is a little late -- difficult -- to unring that bell. The City needs to be mindful of the governing State statute and the City ordinance. The City ordinance states that the maximum annual fee for mooring or anchorage shall be $200. Councilman Pessina states that going forward we can discuss this issue. Attorney Smith agrees, noting that, going forward, this is the kind of discussion we may want to have with them in the next lease, if another lease comes up. Attorney Smith also points out, as Planning Director Joseph Samolis can attest, they are giving monetary equivalent of $20K+ in tickets to senior citizens. Councilman Serra offers a point of information: the value of the tickets is $20,000: 400 ticket at $50 per ticket. Councilman Serra notes that $20,000 for the seniors is very important for these cruises in October – actually tomorrow – and again in May. He urges that the City be careful with the harbor fee especially since these senior cruises are always full. Councilman Pessina replies that he understands Councilman Serra’s concerns, adding that with Essex Steam Train, there may be great things in the future. While the City cannot do anything about this issue now, they are good partners, but it is also an eye opener for us. Attorney Smith adds that Planning Director Samolis has done a great deal of work to get to the bottom of this matter. Deputy Mayor Santangelo recognizes Councilman Sebastian Giuliano. Councilman Giuliano states that he has two (2) subjects to address with Attorney Smith, the Lady Katharine being one of them. Relative to the Lady Katharine, Councilman Giuliano states that he understands what is before the Council is a C.G.S. §8-24 review of the action of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Councilman Giuliano states that the only issue in an 8-24 review is whether the activity is consistent with the Plan of Conservation & Development (POCD). Is that correct? Attorney Smith replies that the only consideration should be if the proposed purpose is consistent with the POCD. He adds that, reading the statutes, it is not entirely clear if the Council’s potential override with OCTOBER 2, 2017 SPECIAL COMMON COUNCIL MEETING Page 4 the 2/3 vote is the actual POCD or the lease itself. The way the resolution is phrased, it is to approve the lease and that a 2/3 vote is needed to do so. Councilman Giuliano replies that, if that is the case, then the resolution is unclear. He notes that they are blending two functions. Approving a lease is something the Council would do under its authority as the City's fiscal arbiter. An 8-24 is completely different. Approving a lease is a simple majority vote. An 8-24 review requires a 2/3 majority to overturn the action of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Attorney Smith replies that, in reading C.G.S. §8-24, the statute is ambiguous. While we may call it an override, it is actually not. The statute talks about 2/3 vote, but it does not say that the Council is reviewing only for the POCD nor does it say that it is an override. What the statute does say is that it is a 2/3 vote of the legislative body to approve whatever document it is. The resolution is as broad as §8-24. Councilman Giuliano asks what would be the case if the Planning & Zoning Commission had approved the 8-24 application. Attorney Smith replies that, with the 8-24 review, if the Planning & Zoning Commission had found that the proposed activity complied with the POCD, then what would have come to Council would have been the request to authorize the proposed five (5) year lease. In that situation, the Council would not be considering the POCD. The Council is now doing two (2) jobs under this resolution. He notes that this language is really not as clear as we all think it should be. Councilman Giuliano replies that any lease would be approved by simple majority. Attorney Smith concurs, noting that unless it goes to the legislative body following an 8-24 denial for public purpose. Councilman Giuliano states that, relative to the substance, he is puzzling how docking a boat violates the POCD. The dock is there; that’s what it is for. Attorney Smith states that, in addition, the use has not changed since the previous lease was in place. The only change is the ownership. Councilman Giuliano states that another question that came up at Finance & Government Operations Commission meeting is that there is a lease in effect thru 2019. Therefore, even if this resolution fails, there is still a lease is in place thru 2019, Attorney Smith explains that this issue is a little murky. He explains that he went back to reconstruct the leases back to 2006, under Councilman Giuliano’s time as Mayor. In addition, there are letters between former Planning Director Warner and the operators regarding an extension. These letters tracked a lease expiration of April 30, 2017, which is why this lease addresses May 1, 2017. We were necessarily going forward with an abundance of caution as we could not find that document and say we are okay, which is why we are here. Councilman Giuliano notes that he recalls it being a five (5) year lease with a five (5) year renewal. The first five (5) year term would have ended in 2014. Attorney Smith agrees, adding that there is 2013 correspondence about an extension, but the trail is lost, which is why we are starting a new trail just to be sure. Councilman Giuliano states that there is another issue. Deputy Mayor Santangelo states (inaudible). Councilman Giuliano yields to Councilman Gerald Daley. Councilman Daley states that he is concerned that the questions from Councilman Pessina may suggest that the City is not getting a good deal because Hartford was getting $10,000. That information has not been verified. We do not know where that information originates or if it is true. Based on the statute, it OCTOBER 2, 2017 SPECIAL COMMON COUNCIL MEETING Page 5 seems likely it is not true – at least that they cannot be getting docking fees of $10,000 -- since the statute caps it. Is that correct? Attorney Smith replies that he would not be comfortable doing that. Councilman Daley reiterates that we do not know if it is true, asking if anyone has verified it. It’s like a rumor. He notes that he does not want to leave the public with the impression that Middletown will be accepting less: $9,800 less than Hartford. He also reiterates that Middletown gets 400 tickets with a market value of $20,000. Deputy Mayor Santangelo calls on Councilwoman Mary Bartolotta. Councilwoman Bartolotta asks Attorney Smith if he knows when the ordinance for the docking fee was created. Attorney Smith replies that this ordinance was updated in 2015. He notes that Attorney Wisneski, working with General Counsel Commission, added during the updated the reference to C.G.S.§22a-113s so that we would be in compliance with State law. Councilwoman Bartolotta notes that, given the discussion tonight, we created the annual fee by ordinance. It is something that we can change and revisit. Is that correct? Attorney Smith replies that the process would be for the Harbor Management Commission to recommend a dockage and mooring fee, but it would be capped at $200 annually per State statute. This provision is already recognized in the City ordinance. Attorney Bartolotta asks Attorney Smith to clarify the meaning of “annually” in this ordinance. Attorney Smith replies that he interprets “annually” as tracking to the lease May1, 2017 to April 30, 2018 and annually thereafter in the context of the lease. Councilwoman Bartolotta states that the term “annually” means from the beginning to end of contract so that each and every year would be a fee of $200 fee per year for each of the five (5) years of that contract. Attorney Smith confirms and notes that, if it is later determined that the State statute supports Hartford is doing it correctly, and there is a $10,000 ceiling, then this lease would allow us to do that. The City cannot go beyond what the State statute permits. Councilwoman Bartolotta notes that the City is making a judgment call as to what is the best to charge for the docking fees, but the City is bound by statutes and cannot go beyond that limit. She asks, since the business is owned by new company, what does this mean with a new company since that old contract should be null and void. Attorney Smith replies that it a fresh start and this new contract supplants whatever came before. Councilwoman Bartolotta notes that, based on this information, we can consider what is best for our City in terms of the new lease. Attorney Smith confirms. Councilwoman Bartolotta states that she has one more question as to the outcome of this matter with the Planning & Zoning Commission. She states that she has a concern about voting on the 8-24 as there are parameters for what the Council can vote on. She asks what the Planning & Zoning Commission vote was and if they needed five (5) affirmative votes. Attorney Smith states that Planning & Zoning vote was four (4) to three (3), so the motion to issue a favorable report failed. The reason that the matter is now before the Council is because the reasons cited by the Planning & Zoning Commission were not germane to the statutory charge; namely, does this lease for that dock comport with the Plan of Conservation & Development. There has been no change in use; it OCTOBER 2, 2017 SPECIAL COMMON COUNCIL MEETING Page 6 is continuation of the same use. Some of the objections raised were noise, signage, parking – all great concerns to have – but things that have nothing to do with the Planning & Zoning Commission doing an 8- 24 review. Councilwoman Bartolotta states that the grounds used by the Planning & Zoning Commission to vote against this matter were not related to -- were outside of -- their purview. Attorney Smith confirms. Councilwoman Bartolotta asks that, since there was a four (4) to three (3) vote, should this matter go back to Planning & Zoning for a full quorum vote. Attorney Smith states that there was a seven (7) member full quorum; it was a legal vote of seven (7) members. He notes that the motion voted failed because approval required five (5) affirmative votes ad there were only four (4) affirmative votes. He adds that the matter does not go back to the Planning & Zoning Commission because there is no change -- no difference -- in plan. In addition, it is unnecessary since it would still need to go to Council for approval of the underlying lease apart from the POCD. He added that, legally, the item cannot go to Planning & Zoning since nothing changed. Time for them to reconsider has come and gone. Although the State statute is ambiguous, we have clear path for the Council to approve the use by a 2/3 vote, to approve the lease, and to move forward. Deputy Mayor Santangelo calls on Councilman Eugene Nocera. Councilman Nocera states that, as member of Harbor Improvement Committee, this group has been working aggressively to expand dockage at Harbor Park. In the spring, we should see four (4) transient docks built north of the Lady Katharine dock. He notes that riverfront is clearly one of the City’s greatest assets and one of the City’s most underutilized assets. The City has tried to improve usage and to build a foundation upon which to expand. Councilman Nocera states that he fully supports the agreement for the Lady Katharine. Community support is evident. He adds that, if we could expand events, we should especially wince there is a waiting list. People sign up immediately for this cruise. This is something we should nurture and expand. Deputy Mayor Santangelo calls on Councilman Thomas Serra. He yields to Councilman Sebastian Giuliano for this Director. Councilman Giuliano asks about Item 10M on agenda, the underlying resolution. He asks if Attorney Smith drafted this resolution since it is messy. Attorney Smith states that he did not draft this resolution. Councilman Giuliano states that after getting past the “whereas” clauses, there a couple of operative clauses. The first is oratory language. Ultimately, it appears we are directing the commission by resolution to do something. He notes that he sees nothing in the ordinance giving Council authority to do so. The closest is §14-6, but that deals exclusively with the Director. Attorney Smith concurs, noting that “request” and “encourage” are allowed, but not “to submit.” Councilman Giuliano states that the operative provision in the proposed resolution has no legal basis. Attorney Smith recognizes the point on the “will submit” language. Councilman Giuliano reads aloud the language in the draft resolution as written. He notes that the Commission can do the work if it wants to. Attorney Smith agrees. Deputy Mayor Santangelo calls on Councilman Gerald Daley. Councilman Daley asks if there is anyone present who can speak for the Board of Education on school readiness. Tina Gomes, Chief Management Analyst for the Finance Department, and Dawn Dubay, the City’s School Readiness Liaison step to the podium. Councilman Daley states that, at last week’s Finance & Government meeting, there were questions about the request for an advance or loan in anticipation of the school readiness grants. He asks if they can be explained. Given the State’s budget situation, there is concern as to how these programs are being carried out now into the school year. They are direct grants. Ms. Gomes replies that the grant does come to the City as the fiduciary. She explains that the Governor’s executive order provide for funding for the first three (3) months of program. There is concern as to what will happen in the fourth month not knowing if there is going to be an approved State budget OCTOBER 2, 2017 SPECIAL COMMON COUNCIL MEETING Page 7 and considering that there are 281 kids participating in the program. The $186,000 is an estimate based on current enrollment. Paperwork comes to Finance and the City has drawn down for the first three (3) months. It is this fourth month, without budget, that has prompted them to request a loan from the General Fund. She explains that, after speaking with the offices of the Middletown delegation -- Senator Doyle, Representative Lesser, and Representative Serra -- all confirmed that school readiness is funded in all three (3) versions of the State budget. Councilman Daley asks if “fourth month” refers to the fourth month of the school year or of the fiscal year. Ms. Gomes replies that it is fourth month of fiscal year. She adds that funding that gets approved now -- October funding -- is for September. For October, it is one month back since the City does not have the paperwork yet. She explains that this means that there will not be a lapse in coverage for students. Councilman Daley asks how the money was spent in July and August when children were not in school. Ms. Dubay states that there are private and public preschools. In July and August, programs operate and serve 188 kids. In September, kids come into the Board of Education programs and the YMCA, increasing enrollment. The YMCA has programs at the YMCA building and at Mcdonough School and Bielefield School or the school day, increasing program enrollment in September. Councilman Daley notes that an obvious concern is that, if the cost is $186,000 per month and if that cost is not funded by the State, then the City creates a $2M obligation. This presume that, once funded in October, if there is still no budget, then the Board of Education will be back a month from now. He adds that his concerns are allayed somewhat based on a report issued last week by the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM) that seems to indicate that school readiness funding is held constant even under the Governor’s executive order. As a result, it would continue to be funded. In other words, if there is no budget and the executive order stays in force, this program would be funded. Ms. Gomes replies that this is what she has been told and what has been confirmed by the Middletown delegation. Councilman Daley asks about the school readiness enhancement grant; that is, how does it differ. Ms. Dubay explains that the quality enhancement grant is used to add more quality to the programs. This grant brings support people into the program to help families that are struggling. It allows them to hold teacher workshops to train as to how quality can be enhanced. It helps with preschool and kindergarten alignment. There are many activities. Deputy Mayor Santangelo calls on Councilman Thomas Serra. Councilman Serra notes that there was no representation at the Finance Committee meeting, so this explanation has clarified this matter. Councilman Serra states that, having also spoken with the delegation, Ms. Gomes is correct: the Governor’s budget includes it; the Democrat budget includes it; and the Republican budget includes it. This program is staying unlike the debate on UConn and other item. If this happens again, he states that, if this continues, these agents will need to come to Finance and make them aware of the situation. Deputy Mayor Santangelo calls on Councilwoman Linda Salafia. Councilwoman Salafia asks for a clarification about the grant. She reads aloud information as submitted to the Council, including language about the number of slots. She asks if the number of slots in increased annually. Ms. Gomes replies that they try to increase the number of seat, depending on the grant. The State had increased the grant from $1.8M to $2.2M, allowing the creation of accredited slots with providers. OCTOBER 2, 2017 SPECIAL COMMON COUNCIL MEETING Page 8 Councilwoman Salafia asks if the loan is simply to cover the number of existing slots. Ms. Gomes confirms, noting that there is a grant process so the City know how many seats it will have from year to year. Deputy Mayor Santangelo calls on Councilman Philip Pessina. Councilman Pessina asks that they describe the private entities involved in this program. Ms. Dubay states that there are private entities, such as Bright & Early, that receives funds. Other entities are South Farms, with all slots for school readiness children, and Town & Country. Councilman Pessina asks, if all else fails, is there another approach to finance this program.Ms. Dubay states that they are no doing everything possible to align the school readiness program with the elementary schools. There are workshops and teacher training, all efforts to think outside the box. Deputy Mayor Santangelo calls on Councilman Thomas Serra. Councilman Serra notes that the Board of Education had a surplus. He asks if it is possible for the Board of Education to fund this program and for School Readiness to reimburse the Board. Ms. Gomes replies that the money comes to the City, as the fiduciary, and that the Board of Education is a grantee. In other words, giving the money to the Board of Education is akin to the fox watching the henhouse. The funds come to the City since the Board of Education cannot cut its own checks. The City has been the fiduciary for over 20 years. Deputy Mayor Santangelo calls on Councilwoman Mary Bartolotta. Councilwoman Bartolotta asks Finance Director Erlacher asks about Item 7B, a $35,000 appropriation for Planning, Conservation & Development. She asks if that money is proposed to come from the committee’s budget or the City’s saving account. Director Erlacher states that the money for this appropriation – Item 7B -- is proposed to come from the General Fund. The other proposed appropriation – Item 7A – is to come from the Sanitation Fund. Councilwoman Bartolotta asks if the City can afford this expenditure, not knowing if there will be money from the State. Director Erlacher replies that he does not like taking anything from that account, but it’s the Council’s decision if it is in the beneficial to the City as a whole. The City is behind the pace on taking money from that account compared to last year. Councilwoman Bartolotta asks if the City will be able to close the gap, if needed. Director Erlacher replies that it is difficult to answer. He notes that there is a potential loss of $7.5M under the Governor’s executive order; however, under the alternative budget plans, the City would get about the same amount of money under one budget proposal and more in the alternative budget proposal. Councilwoman Bartolotta asks how much wiggle room is there to maintain status quo. Director Erlacher replies that, if there is a $7.5M cut, there will be problems. If status quo is kept, there is plenty of wiggle room. Deputy Mayor Santangelo calls on Councilman Thomas Serra. Councilman Serra notes to Director Erlacher that the Council is being prudent: over the past four (4) months appropriations have been only $85,000 compared to $2M, $4M in other years. Councilman Serra calls on Acting Water Department Director Robert Young. Regarding the CNR, Councilman Serra states that the billing information caught his attention. He asks if billing will be through the Water Department or Finance. Acting Director Young replies that the billing is thru the Water Department. This appropriation is for the licensing fees for upgrades to their current software system to a better version. OCTOBER 2, 2017 SPECIAL COMMON COUNCIL MEETING Page 9 Councilman Serra asks, since there is both the opportunity and the money, is this the way to proceed. Finance Director Erlacher replies that the bills will come from Tax Collector Lee Muscatello’s office. The new system is better than the last system 3. Questions to Directors Closes Deputy Mayor Santangelo asks if there are any further questions. There are none. Councilman Serra moves to adjourn the meeting at 6:50 p.m. Councilwoman Giuliano seconds the motion. The chair calls for the vote. It is unanimous to approve with 12 aye votes. The Acting Chair states the matter passes unanimously with 12 affirmative votes. 4. Meeting adjourned The meeting is adjourned at 6:50pm. ATTEST: LINDA S.K. REED, COMMON COUNCIL CLERK K: review/ minutes/ 17 Oct 02 minutes – SPECIAL MEETING COMMON COUNCIL