Common Council

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMON COUNCIL QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS WORKSHOP MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2022 6:00 PM MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Common Council of the City of Middletown, Questions to Directors, was held on Tuesday, November 7, 2022, beginning at 6:00 PM. This meeting was a hybrid meeting with in-person participation in the Common Council Chamber and remote access via WebEx. The meeting was also simultaneously livestreamed on local cable access television, on the City’s webpage and on the City’s Facebook page. Present: Councilwoman Jeanette Blackwell Councilman Anthony Mangiafico Councilwoman Meghan Carta Councilman Michael A. Marino Councilman Grady Faulkner, Jr. Councilman Edward McKeon Councilman Darnell Ford Councilman Eugene Nocera Councilman Anthony Gennaro, Sr. Councilman Philip Pessina Councilman Vincent Loffredo Councilwoman Linda Salafia Mayor Benjamin D. Florsheim, Chair Linda Reed, Clerk of the Common Council Officer Benjamin Murphy, Sargent-at-Arms Also Present: Arts & Culture – Kisha Michael, Coordinator City & Town Clerk – Ashley Flynn-Natale Communications – Wayne Bartolotta, Director Economic & Community Development – Barbara Knoll Peterson, Eco. Devel. Specialist/Acting Director Equal Opportunity & Diversity Management – Faith Jackson, Director Finance – Diana Doyle, Deputy Director Fire Department – Chief John Woron General Counsel – Brig Smith, Esq. Health – Kevin Elak, Director Land Use, Marek Kozikowski, AICP, Director (excused) Library – Ramona Burkey Police Department – Chief Eric Costa; Officer Benjamin Murphy Public Works – Christopher Holden, PE, Director Recreation & Community Services – Catherine Lechowicz, Director Technology Services – Brianna Skowera, Director Water & Sewer Department -- Joseph Fazzino, Director Absent: Assessor -- Damon Braasch, CCMA II; Director Human Resources – Justin Richardson, Division Director Youth Services, Justin Carbonella, MPA – Director 1. Call to Order Mayor Benjamin Florsheim calls the meeting to order at 6:02 PM. He welcomes everyone to the Special Meeting of the Common Council, Questions to Directors. The Chair asks Councilman Philip Pessina to lead the Common Council in the Pledge of Allegiance The Clerk of the Common Council reads the Call of the Meeting and the Chair declares the call a legal call and the meeting a legal meeting. 2. Questions to Directors Workshop Opens – Question of Regular Meeting Agenda Items The Chair opens Questions to Directors at 6:05 PM. The Chair calls on Councilman Eugene Nocera Councilman Nocera asks City Attorney Brig Smith to the podium. He notes that, tonight, Attorney Smith is bringing forward the final applications for the American Rescue Plan. There is also set-aside money, priorities for City projects. He thanks the entire committee, staff, and the Mayor’s Office, the interim Planning Director Bobby Peterson, the entire committee, the Technology Director Bree Skowera and all the citizens, who participated. They could go on and on. He notes that here is still a tremendous amount of work ahead of them.  NOVEMBER 7, 2022 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 2 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS They have put in hundreds of hours and are now ready to approve the last six (6) applications. He asks Attorney Smith to provide a summary. Attorney Smith states that he will share his screen, showing the spreadsheet that they have been working on as a City, quipping that live television is fun. NUMBER READINESS PROJECT/ WORKING GROUP TASK FORCE AMOUNT BUDGET/ CC APPROVED AGENCY NAME PROJECT OF PEOPLE URGENCY TO AGENCY RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED REQUESTED FUNDING FUNDING IMPACTED PROCEED FEASIBILITY FUNDING FUNDING 1 Water and Sewer Water and Sewer Upgrade Planning $ 2,750,000.00 $ 2,750,000.00 $ 2,750,000.00 $ 2,750,000.00 2 545 Main Realty, LLC 545 Main Street $ 1,500,000.00 9 6 8 8 8 $ 750,000.00 $ 750,000.00 $ 750,000.00 3 Recreation and Community Services/Arts/Russell Healing the Heart, Mind and Soul of the City $ 491,400.00 8 9 9 10 10 $ 491,400.00 $ 491,400.00 $ 491,400.00 4 Russell Library Rebuilding Community Connections at the Russell Library $ 250,000.00 10 10 10 9 10 $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 5 Middlesex Chamber Side Street to Main Street Business and Leadership Development Program $ 181,290.00 2 9 10 1 10 $ 181,290.00 $ 181,290.00 $ 181,290.00 6 Gilead Commuity Services, Inc. Navigating Wellness in Middletown $ 299,826.22 3 8 9 8 9 $ 299,826.22 $ 299,826.22 $ 299,826.22 7 Middlesex YMCA Phelps Ingersoll Preschool $ 350,000.00 5 7 8 10 10 $ 350,000.00 $ 350,000.00 $ 350,000.00 8 Paws at Home LLC Wildlife Center $ 2,000,000.00 3 1 1 1 1 $ - $ - $ - 9 Middlesex Health A New Home for Behavioral Health $ 321,000.00 5 5 5 7 10 $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 10 DCF of Main Street 420, LLC Negative Economic Impact 420, 428, 548 Main St. $ 2,536,300.00 8 7 9 9 9 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,536,300.00 $ 2,536,300.00 11 NHCPA Riverbend, LLC Music Venue $ 3,500,000.00 8 7 8 6 8 $ 1,500,000.00 $ 2,100,000.00 $ 2,100,000.00 12 City of Middletown ARPA Consultants $ 650,000.00 - - - - - $ 650,000.00 $ 650,000.00 $ 650,000.00 13 City of Middletown Permanent Pride sidewalk installation 14 City of Middletown Connectivity of Sidewalks 15 City of Middletown Main Street sidewalk repair 16 City of Middletown Outdoor dining 17 City of Middletown 80 Harbor Drive 18 339 Main Street, LLC 339 Main Street $ 850,000.00 5 5 7 7 8 $ - $ - $ - 19 Cross Street Training & Academic Center, Inc. Health equity and economic restoration for Middletown's BIPOC community $ 1,220,809.00 8 9 8 9 9 $ 1,220,809.00 $ 1,220,809.00 $ 1,220,809.00 20 206, Inc. Proposed Veteran's campus $ 1,300,000.00 3 3 1 1 1 $ - $ - $ - 21 JDS Holdings 562 South Main Street $ 600,000.00 7 7 9 8 8 $ 450,000.00 $ 600,000.00 $ 600,000.00 22 Community Health Center, Inc. Peer to Peer Hope Squad $ 249,445.50 8 10 10 7 10 $ 200,000.00 $ 200,000.00 $ 200,000.00 23 Middletown Fire Department Quint Fire Apparatus $ 1,200,000.00 10 10 10 8 10 $ 1,000,000.00 $ 1,000,000.00 $ 1,000,000.00 24 Middlesex Redemption Center Can and Bottle Redemption Facility $ 100,000.00 9 7 9 7 10 $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 25 NoRa Cupcake Company Purchase of building at 696-700 Main Street $ 500,000.00 5 5 8 9 10 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 26 Connecticut Home Collective, PLLC Foundations: A Restorative Approach to Housing Education $ 75,000.00 6 8 9 7 10 $ 75,000.00 $ 75,000.00 $ 75,000.00 27 Downtown Business District Downtown Façade Matching Funds $ 500,000.00 8 8 8 1 9 $ 300,000.00 $ 300,000.00 $ 300,000.00 28 MARC Community Resources Expanding Programs & Building Stronger Community Relationships $ 975,000.00 5 2 2 2 8 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 29 City of Middletown Water and Sewer Construction of Bartholomew Water Booster Pump Station $ 2,119,920.00 9 9 10 10 10 $ - $ - 30 A.M. Hart Parenting Consulting LLC Trauma Bonded Sisters $ 50,000.00 3 8 8 4 9 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 31 Community Health Center, Inc. Vinnie's Jump and Jive and Middletown Family Wellness Center $ 81,900.00 6 5 10 5 8 $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00 32 St Vincent de Paul Middletown St Vincent's Commons $ 1,200,000.00 9 9 8 8 9 $ 1,000,000.00 $ 1,000,000.00 $ 1,000,000.00 33 Middletown Racial Justice Coalition Traverse Square Summer Enrichment Program $ 96,000.00 5 8 9 8 9 $ 96,000.00 $ 96,000.00 $ 96,000.00 34 Water and Sewer Reconstruction of Red Road Sewage Booster Pump Station $ 748,650.00 9 9 10 10 10 $ - $ - 35 Middletown Conn Realty LLC Newfield Village Community Dev. $ 3,100,000.00 3 3 7 8 8 $ - $ - $ - 36 South Fire District Active Violence Emerg Response Training/Protective Equipment $ 83,024.84 9 10 9 10 10 $ 83,024.84 $ 83,024.84 32 GN International and DeMarco Realty & Assoc.Mohawk Development $ 3,505,150.00 4 4 4 4 6 $ - $ - $ - 37 Westfield Fire Department Active Violence Emergency Response Training/Equipment $ 38,488.00 9 10 9 10 10 $ 38,488.00 $ 38,488.00 38 Middlesex YMCA Teen Development $ 195,060.00 3 7 7 6 10 $ 75,000.00 $ 75,000.00 39 Middlesex Coalition for Children Middletown Youth Recovery and Resilience Project $ 500,000.00 8 6 6 6 8 $ 110,000.00 $ 110,000.00 40 Oddfellows Playhouse Youth Theater Teen Programs Director $ 180,000.00 8 8 10 7 10 $ 180,000.00 $ 180,000.00 41 Middletown United Fathers' Inc. Rev Douglas E Lawrence Community Garden $ 35,000.00 5 8 8 8 9 $ 35,000.00 $ 35,000.00 26 TOTAL FEDERAL ALLOCATION $ 21,731,554.29 27 TOTAL APPROPRIATED SO FAR $ 15,890,625.22 27 TOTAL REMAINING $ 5,840,929.07 $ 5,319,416.23 28 TOTAL ASKS $ 34,333,263.56 29 BALANCE IF ALL ASKS WERE FULLY FUNDED $(12,680,392.56) A Public Health and Economic Impacts Rank the project by the number of people impacted from 1 to 10, "1" being no impact and "10" being community wide. 1 Responding to COVID-19 a COVID-19 Mitigation and Prevention URGENCY b Medical Expenses Rank the urgency of the project using 1 through 10, "1" being not urgent, "10" being immediate need. c Behavioral Health d Public Health and Safety READINESS TO PROCEED e Expenses to Improve the Design and Execution of Health and Public Health Programs Rank the readiness of the project using 1 through 10, "1" being not ready, "10" being immediate implementation. 2 Responding to Negative Economic Impacts a Assistance to Unemployed Workers BUDGET/FUNDING b Assistance to Households Rank the project's budgeting, is the project properly budgeted and have their been other sources of funding identified? Use 1 through 10, "1" being that the budget and c Expenses to Improve Efficacy of Economic Relief Programs financing is incomplete, "10" being all costs are accounted for and funding sources identified and secured. d Small Business and Nonprofit e Rehiring State, Local, and Tribal Government Staff f Aid to Impacted Industries g Building Stronger Communities PROJECT/AGENCY FEASIBILITY h Addressing Educational Disparities Rank the Agency's ability to carryout the project using past experience, using 1 through 10. "1" being that the agency has little to no experieicne carrying a project of this i Promoting Healthy Childhood Environments type, "10" being the agency has a proven past of doing similar projects and have been acompliant with all past requirements. B Premium Pay C Revenue Loss D Investments in Infrastructure Type of programming, new programs, be open to new projects programs that address issues that have no other resources available. 1 Water and Sewer Infrastructure Use grass-roots and entities that are established. 2 Broadband Infrastructure One-time investment Priorities for Community Intake process Survey of Priorities from Committee members Send form to the committtee members CCM information on application processes that communities are using. Financial Report of Funding Outline of Application Process.  NOVEMBER 7, 2022 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 3 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS Attorney Smith states that he will give a summary. There have been 41 applications. As a group -- as a working group, Task Force, and Council – they have gone through these 41. Before the Council tonight are the final six (6) public projects. There are still some set-aside projects from the City that will come to Council later, but for now, there are six (6) to consider. In order, they are:  Item 11D – Oddfellows Playhouse, which is looking to do a Director of Teens Program to transition into new leadership and challenges following the pandemic. They are seeking $180K. The task Force recommendation is to provide the full amount.  Item 11E – YMCA looking to expand their Teen Night program, which is Friday night. They are looking to add Saturday night and to expand some of the program that they have, they requested $195L and the Task Force recommended $75K.  Item 11F – Middletown Fathers Inc. that is looking to get a tractor for the Reverend Lawrence Community Garden. The garden supports financial wellbeing of low to moderate-income families by teaching them to be self-sustaining by growing their own vegetables. It is a moderate ask of $35K and the Task Force recommended full funding.  Item 11G – Middlesex Coalition for Children as a partnership between the Middlesex Coalition for Children and the Youth Services Bureau. It would be a $110K payment from the Task Force with the ask having been $105K. The Task Force is recommending a more moderate amount, It would be a holistic meta view of services that are being provided, less on an individual level and more on a collective level: where are the resources being deployed and how.  Item 11H and 11I and companion requests for Westfield and South Fire. They seek funds for first responders for ballistic equipment, bulletproof vests and helmets the Task Force has recommended fully funding both at $38,488 and $83,024. These are the last six. There will be a time to come back later on for the City set aside programs. He does not know if Councilmembers can see, as of now, they have $5.84M left of unappropriated ARPA funds, if all projects are fully funded tonight that leave $5.19M remaining for City programs. He asks if there are any questions The Chair calls on Councilman Edward McKeon followed by Councilman Vincent Loffredo. Councilman McKeon (inaudible). Attorney Smith replies that they have retained UHY Consultants, adding that they have been working with them in a kickoff meeting a week or so ago. They have a sub-recipient agreement in place. They will reach out to the most urgent project – the projects like real estate deals that need to close, working on stuff immediately the items that have firm deadlines. They will get those agreements in place first. They have identified other high priority time sensitive projects next. There will be a chronological basis since they came in. Councilman McKeon asks, as a follow-up, if there is a sense of when the first dollars will (inaudible). Attorney Smith replies that he is anticipating the agreements on a rolling basis will be in place this month, the next few weeks. In December, there will be meetings – orientation meetings – with sub-grantees. This is tough stuff in terms of Federal reporting and audits that they have to comply with. There is a lot of education for sub- grant recipients as well. Here is what you need to provide as well. In December, possibly January, they will see the cash flow coming. The Chair calls on Councilman Vincent Loffredo. Councilman Loffredo asks when they made the application, how long ago they applied. Attorney Smith asks when or whom. Councilman Loffredo replies. “Oddfellows.” Attorney Smith replies that it would have been in your packet. Go to the second page and you will see that it was June 13, 2022. Councilman Loffredo states that, looking at their budget, they had proposed $180K and, as he understands it, the grant before the Council is the full amount requested. Reading through, he gets the sense, the Director of Teen Programming starts as January 2022. Here we are farther down the line; he asks if there will be an adjustment made in the grant because of the timing when the grant is going out. As he reads it, it will be $60K over three (3) years. Attorney Smith replies, “Yes, correct.” Councilman Loffredo notes that they would have to push that back and start from there, Attorney Smith replies, “Correct.”  NOVEMBER 7, 2022 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 4 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS The Chair calls on Councilman Grady Faulkner. Jr., asking if his question is for Attorney Smith, Councilman Faulkner replies, “Yes,” just a quick one. He notes that he meant to look back at the bulletproof vests for fire. He ask if they have already done central fire. Attorney Smith replies that he does not know if they have, adding that he did not see anything directly in the ARPA funding for that. He states that he is not sure. He adds that his colleague indicates that they have not. Councilman Faulkner asks if they will consider that, adding that here may be no more ARPA. Attorney Smith replies that it could be in the projects that are put in for City set-aside projects. The Chair calls on Councilman Eugene Nocera. Councilman Nocera states that he would like to add to the question on the consultant. He states that he and Councilman Pessina had the pleasure to meet the consultants and right from the beginning it was clear that they are experienced in Connecticut. They are very task-oriented, quickly coming up with a plan to get the letters out so that the applicants know that the meetings are right around the corner. They outlined for them what to expect. Those introductory letters will be going out this week. They were very impressive, in his opinion. The Chair asks if there are any additional questions for Attorney Smith. There being none, the Chair calls on Councilman Vincent Loffredo. Councilman Loffredo calls on Marek Kozikowski, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning (Land Use Department). Councilman Loffredo notes that, on the agenda is a resolution dealing with the possible “opt out” for the accessory apartments provision of Section 8-2 of the Connecticut General Statutes as amended by Public Act 21-29. Where is this potential action, which is something that needs to be done by the Planning & Zoning Commission, he asks when the Commission is expected to take up this matter. City Planner Kozikowski replies that he is hoping that the Council postpones action on this item until the December 2022 meeting when he will have a revised resolution. The Planning & Zoning Commission held a public hearing on October 26, 2022, which is required if the Commission were considering an opt-out. There was significant public interest on this opt out. The Commission continued the public hearing to provide the opportunity to offer a draft zoning text amendment that will comply with the Public Act 21-29. The Commission will need to hold a public hearing on the draft amendment. Once approved, that amendment will move forward with the opt-out, which is the first step. Upon the Planning & Zoning Commission taking action, the Common Council will then take action. Councilman Loffredo states that he understands that the opt-out provision has a deadline. Is that correct? City Planner Kozikowski replies that is correct. The deadline is January 1, 2023. For any municipality that either fails to opt out, or chooses not to opt out, any current zoning regulations that any community has would be null and void and the provisions of the public act would have to be applied by the municipality. Councilman Loffredo asks if City Planner Kozikowski recommends that the Council wait until its December meeting and, at that time, it would be on the agenda, subject to an additional hearing by anyone in the City wishing to comment before the Council takes any action. Correct? City Planner Kozikowski replies, “Correct,” adding that the public hearing with the Planning & Zoning Commission was continued, giving the public more opportunity for public input. The public hearing is continued to this coming Wednesday. He anticipates it to be continued one more time to a date to be determined at a special meeting where the Commission would also hold a public hearing on text amendments. He adds that, as he said, he drafted zoning amendments to comply fully with the Public Act. That leads to the question of why bother to pot out. The provision of the Public Act, if you choose not to opt out, the municipality would have to evaluate proposals with the Public Act. The municipality’s Planning & Zoning Commission would have no ability to amend the zoning code or amend the public act in any way. If they find out that there is something working in some pattern that is not favorable to Middletown. They would have no opportunity to update the Code. This is why it is important to opt out. If there is any issue in the future, we would have local control to address any issues that might come up. The Chair calls on Councilman Edward McKeon. Councilman McKeon states, so it is clear: there is another public hearing. They will consider the draft language. He asks if the Council will have the opportunity -- enough time before its next meeting -- to review the language of that proposal. He understands, in broad strokes, what the concerns are. Perhaps, it would be a good idea to give a brief summary to the Council as to what the Public Act says, what the Planning & Zoning Commission heard from the pubic, and the direction in which we will go in drafting this proposal so that we have some idea what they are looking at. Thank you. City Planner Kozikowski replies, to the first part: the Common Council, while he is happy to provide the language for the review as part of the public hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission there is no action needed by the Council on that language. The only action would be if the Council chooses to opt out of the provision.  NOVEMBER 7, 2022 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 5 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS Public Act 21-29 addresses several things, but the topic of concern tonight is language that has requirements for how municipalities can regulate accessory apartments. An accessory apartment is a secondary dwelling unit that is attached or a part on the same property as a single-family dwelling. Middletown currently has zoning regulations for accessory apartments: there is a general zoning permit review. In addition, there are several criteria. Several of the criteria conflict with the Public Act. Most pertinent are that the Zoning Regulations requirement that an accessory apartment be attached to the principle building. The Public Act would allow it to be attached or detached from the principle bridling, like a detached garage or additional building that could be built in the property to house the accessory unit. Another provision in the current Zoning Code is that there is an owner occupancy requirement in either the principle building or accessory apartment. The Public Act does not require owner occupancy. The Zoning Code has a maximum size of 800 sq. ft. or 33% of the principle building. The Public Act has a larger size requirement of up to 1,000 sq. ft. and 30% of the structure. There are several other provisions where there is conflict. These are the high points. There will be comments at the public hearing and Planning and Zoning Commission on October 26th, he was charged to provide language that would comply fully with the Public Act. The Chair asks if there are any other question for Director Kozikowski. There being none, he calls on Councilman Edward McKeon for the next director. Councilman McKeon calls on Public Works Director Christopher Holden. Councilman McKeon says that an important subject to the public is leaf collection, noting that it is understood that a new program is being implemented. He would like information for the public. Public Works Director Holden replies that there is a new pickup program. They are starting on November 14th. In addition, there may be one or two machines out this week picking up leaves, but they are starting in earnest on November 14th. They will go around the whole City twice. A second round will begin on November 28th, adding that will be the last for the season. Councilman McKeon asks how this program is different from the past. Director Holden states that, in the past, the leaf machines traveled around the City looking for piles. They are trying to be more efficient this year. They waited an extra week to be sure that all of the leaves were down to try to be sustainable. The Chair calls on Councilwoman Jeanette Blackwell. Councilwoman Blackwell asks Director Holden to speak to agenda Item 11J. How are we now with respect to waste disposal prices? What percentage is the city currently at? She will be supporting the resolution. She also asks that he speak to the EPA Health Communities grant. Director Holden states, that Connecticut is in a waste crisis. They are taking steps on how we collect and dispose of waste. One program is a pilot to do refill, not landfill for coffee cups. Instead of getting throwaway cups, they are promoting bringing your own cup to the coffee shop and getting a refill. The EPA grant is along those lines. It is a pilot grant for reusable take-out containers. You get your food and take it home, then bring it back when done. The store will clean it to health standards and reuse those containers. The $40K pilot is to help us understand the issues that may come in, what size containers, using them interchangeably with different restaurants. They are trying to understand how to implement that program throughout the City. Councilwoman Blackwell states that she was a bit concerned about bringing the containers back, but it is great to hear more about it. Thank you. The being no additional questions for Director Holden, the Chair calls on Councilman Eugene Nocera. Councilman Nocera calls on Library Dirtier Ramona Burkey. He notes that Director Burkey is remote on WebEx with Library Trustee Eamon Wisneski. He adds that they are addressing the tabled issue the pre-construction of Russell Library. Director Burkey states that Mr. Wisneski is viewing the streaming meeting. She will do her best. Councilman Nocera states that his question, the Council had tabled the pre-construction proposal at its last meeting. There is a new, revised resolution. He asks that director Burkey provide her vision of the importance of this, working in tandem with the City. It is a feasibility study of the City Hall and Russell Library sites. Director Burkey states that this is something that has been before the City’s Finance & Government Operations Commission a couple of times. They had conversations about it. They originally went to Finance & Government with a larger request. After some discussion, it was decided to starts with $50K to begin on a feasibility process, and potentially to include a shared site with City Hall. As background, she states that, over that last couple of years, the library has conducted a comprehensive strategic planning process. They did the Connecticut State Library Space Planning Guide Worksheet. They conducted a town wide vision committee process. Finally, last year, they did an exhaustive engineering and space planning assessment process. After all of this, it has become clear that the current site of Russell Library is not able to meet the needs for the 21st century facility nor can it really be reasonably expected to do so in the future. The current building mw hen expanded in 1983, was designed to last until 2000. This planning process is a little bit overdue. Currently, Middletown is at a  NOVEMBER 7, 2022 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 6 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS precipice for making major improvements to downtown and the riverfront areas to ensure a sustainable community for future generations. That can and should include planning for vital public services like the library and, potentially, City Hall, both having outgrown their current buildings. There is an unprecedented amount of funding available from a variety of sources at the State and Federal level to offset these investments in these facilities. The library is an anchor in the downtown of free and equitable lifelong education stands ready to be a vital partner in the City’s economic development efforts. To that end, we look forward to beginning the feasibility study to make wise plans for future community needs, providing safe, healthy, accessible, sustainable spaces for all. The feasibility study committee, to be appointed by the Mayor, with professional consulting assistance, will look at potential sites for a new public library building as well as a share site option for a shared City Hall. The pros and cons of each site, include location and ability to activate nearby areas, environmental impacts studies, architectural renderings and cost estimates will all be considered as they go through the process as well as these or future use of the current building at 123 Broad Street. Tonight’s $50K appropriation request and resolution will get them started in that planning process. She will answer any questions. Councilman Nocera states that he has no additional questions. The Chair calls on Councilman Vincent Loffredo. Councilman Loffredo states that, in checking the information provide by the library, a year ago – October 14, 2021 – the library published a comprehensive study of the library. He asks how that was conducted, noting it was conducted solely under the Russell Library Board. He asks how that can about. Director Burkey sates that they used unexpected City funds that had none been paid as part-time salaries during the pandemic. As you may recall, the library building was closed to the public for a number of months. They were able to appropriate that money for professional services to hire a consultant, an architectural & engineering firm, to take an exhaustive look at every square inch of their property at 123 Broad Street, which included an architect along with a construction firm, an engineering firm, and a library-consulting firm. It was very comprehensive. They were on roofs, in basements, and in crawlspaces. They were in gross mechanical nooks and looked at ever square inch of the library. The net result of that process is that they are at a point where they need to plan for new facility. This facility is not working for a variety of ways. For 21st Century library purposes, it is not flexible or sustainable. According to the State Library Space Planning Guide, they are at 5,000 sq. ft. now and need at least 60,000 sq. for the current population, much less for projected future population. Councilman Loffredo asks what the cost of that study was. Director Burkey replies that the cost was $75K. Councilman Loffredo asks to confirm that it was a reallocation of City funds, as he understands. Director Burkey replies, “Yes, it was.” Councilman Loffredo states that the other aspect, the other nature of the hybrid governance situation is the allocation of City funds to maintain and operate. This is a project that he assumes, at some point will go to a Citywide referendum. It would be something that would have to be paid for by taxpayers. He asks Director Burkey if this is her understanding. Director Burkey replies that, primarily, it will likely be funded by City taxpayers in addition to whatever State and Federal funding grants would be available. Councilman Loffredo asks if there is any discussion as to how this would go forward in terms of oversight in light of the fact that the City taxpayers, the operations and physical development of a library, the responsibility for how the library would be governed. Director Burkey replies that this is definitely something that the Library Trustees have discussed and is continuing to discuss. They understand the unique history and governance of the public library. Honestly, for every town in Connecticut, there are different ways to thread that needle as purely municipal or purely association and everything in between. It is definitely a topic of discussion with the Board of Trustees. Councilman Loffredo asks, as for the current facility, it would not be renovated and would be vacated. Is that how the . . . Multiple speakers (inaudible) Director Burkey (inaudible) . . . would remain to be seen. They are a lot of question marks. They are at the beginning of the process, noting it is a feasibility study process and, while they cannot make assumptions on the end result, it is definitely the future and disposition of the current library building would be part of the planning process. It is valuable asset to the City for the community a lot of history. What happens to that facility would have to be decided with care. Councilman Loffredo states that the resolution before the Council states it would be dealing with Russell Library and City Hall. Is it anticipated that the facility will be a Russell Library/City Hall facility or that both entities need to be considered from a feasibility point of view?  NOVEMBER 7, 2022 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 7 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS Director Burkey replies that, right now, it is the latter: is there a site that could accommodate both facilitates. Does it make sense? Would it activate areas nearby? Would it be accessible and useful for residents? Is it even possible? They are at square one with that. The initial $50K appropriation would help them get started with that process. The Chair calls on Councilman Pessina, asking if his question is for Director Burkey. Councilman Pessina states that his concern is that Director Burkey knows better than anyone does how important the library was during Covid for 2 ½ to 3 years. He notes that, when the library reopened, the public was in need in that library. His question is this would be in the center core of the City That seems to be the most primary spot, if they can find it as there is segment of the population that are walkable families. They do not have the vehicle to a library or City Hall. He asks what her vision is for that. Director Burkey state that her vision is have the absolute, most accessible public library building that the community can possibly have. Accessibility is the biggest complaint at the current site, mostly in terms of parking or lack thereof, especially because it is a paid parking lot. Accessibly to all in the community, including those arriving on foot, is essential. She thinks that will be a big job for this committee once formed. Councilman Pessina asks, if it is his understanding, based on the study they did, that they have engaged the public opinion on this new library, especially location. Director Burkey states that they received feedback from hundreds, if not thousands, over the course of the strategic planning process and their vision study committee. The Vison Committee was an outgrowth of the Strategic Planning Committee process. They did surveys and interviews of hundreds of people doing that process. They accessibility and usability and equitable access to the building were things that came up. People do not feel that the current busying satisfies those crucial needs. In addition, they have professional assessment to confirm that. They definitely had that public input. The Vision Committee was about 19 community members, including the Mayor. They value that input. They started with their mission statement; “Empower people to connect, strive, and thrive.” Then they had the Vision Committee walk through exercises to design facilities to achieve that mission statement. The things that came up with were not a great match with the current facility. That is more data added to the pile. Councilman Pessina offers a suggestion: he believes that Wethersfield has a library attached to City Hall They do not have a standalone City Hall. He suggest that the Committee reach out to them to see, as part of the study. As far as he knows that is it. He urges her to keep up the work and thanks her for her efforts. The Chair calls on Councilman Loffredo. Councilman Loffredo call Attorney brig Smith to the podium to address a question on the feasibility study committee. He has reviewed the information in more detail as the resolution discuss the feasibility study committee. He finds nothing in the Code dealing with such a committee and what its powers and duties will be. In looking at the Building Committee Ordinance, the language on appointment alludes to the Building Committee can evaluate the overarching plans of the City and how a project fits within it. That is Chapter 14, Section1 4023b. It is one goal. We are not calling this a building committee. There is a need, before the Mayor appoints a committee to take on this responsibility. If we decide to call this a building committee or decide to stick with feasibility committee and define its responsibilities. Councilman Loffredo notes that he is calling this matter to Attorney Smith’s attention. 3. QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS – CLOSES There being no further questions, the Chair closes Questions to Directors at 6:47 PM. 4. ADJOURNMENT Councilman Vincent Loffredo moves to adjourn. Councilman Grady Faulkner, Jr seconds the motion. There being no discussion, the Chair calls for voice vote. The motion is unanimously approved by a vote of 12- 0 (AYE: Councilmembers Blackwell, Carta, Faulkner, Ford, Gennaro, Loffredo, Mangiafico McKeon, Marino, Nocera, Pessina, and Salafia. The matter is approved. The meeting is adjourned at 6:48 PM ATTEST: LINDA S.K. REED, COMMON COUNCIL CLERK K: review/ minutes/ 2022 Nov 07 – Questions to Directors - & Nov 2022