Common Council

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMON COUNCIL QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS WORKSHOP MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2023 6:00 PM MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Common Council of the City of Middletown, Questions to Directors, was held on Monday, February 6, 2023, 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 Michael A. Marino Councilwoman Meghan Carta Councilman Edward McKeon Councilman Grady Faulkner, Jr. Councilman Eugene Nocera Councilman Darnell Ford Councilman Philip Pessina Councilman Anthony Gennaro, Sr. Councilwoman Linda Salafia Councilman Vincent Loffredo Hon. Benjamin Florsheim, Mayor Linda Reed, Clerk of the Common Council Officer Tavares, Middletown Police - Sargent-at-Arms Also Present: Arts & Culture – Kisha Michael, Coordinator Board of Education – Cassie Steinhilber City & Town Clerk – Ashley Flynn-Natale Communications – Wayne Bartolotta, Director Econ. & Comm. Development.– Barbara Knoll Peterson, Eco. Devel. Specialist/Acting Director Equal Opportunity & Diversity Management – Faith Jackson Finance – Carl Erlacher, CPA - Director Fire Department – Chief John Woron General Counsel – Brig Smith, Esq. Health – Kevin Elak, Director Land Use -- Marek Kozikowski, AICP, Director Library – Ramona Burkey, Director Police Department – Chief Eric Costa; Capt. John Lozefski Public Works – Christopher Holden, PE, Director Recreation & Community Services – Catherine Lechowicz, Director Technology Services – Brianna Skowera, Director Water & Sewer Department -- Joseph Fazzino, Director Youth Services, Justin Carbonella, MPA – Director Absent: Assessor -- Damon Braasch, CCMA II; Director Human Resources – Justin Richardson, Division Director Public: WebEx: 5 Facebook: 12 1. Call to Order Mayor Benjamin Florsheim, as Chair, calls the meeting to order at 6:01 PM. He welcomes everyone to the Special Meeting of the Common Council, Questions to Directors. The Chair asks everyone to join 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. Prior to opening the Question to Directors portion of the meeting, the Chair explains that there will be a brief presentation by Public Works Director Christopher Holden. Councilman Edward McKeon asks that the Questions to Director be held first, followed by the presentation to ensure that there is sufficient time for questions, unless we are willing to extend Questions to Directors, if we need to. FEBRUARY 6, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 2 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS The Chair states that it seems that there is a motion to amend the agenda on the floor. There is no second. The motion fails. Councilman Vincent Loffredo asks that the Council go forward with the agenda as it is, the understanding being that they would extend the time or ask those directors, who might still needs to answer questions, be asked to stay during the meeting until their item comes up. We have to have the opportunity to inquire properly for all items on the agenda. He understands that is what Councilman McKeon is trying to do by reversing the order of business. The consensus is, if we have a question. Are we all in agreement with Councilman McKeon? Councilman Loffredo notes that, given the head nodding, everyone seems to be in agreement with Councilman McKeon’s desire that, after this presentation, an extension of time for Questions to Directors will be made or directors will be asked to stay until their item comes up during the regular meeting. Councilman McKeon thanks Councilman Loffredo for framing the request in these terms. The Chair states that, with that understanding, the presenters have a tie frame until 7PM for the regular meeting. We will get started with that presentation and answer any questions. 2. Recycling Grant Public Works Director Christopher Holden states that they are here to talk about the waste crisis in Connecticut. They will present what the City is doing with the grant it received from the State to address this issue. He introduces Kristin Brown, who is helping with this project. \ Kristen Brown states that she will speak 15 minutes or less. She states that Kim (O’Rourke) has a video, showing the process that the sanitation district is going through now. Those who are participating in the district are doing now. It is less than 60 seconds. Trash s being collected in the same truck, with black and white bags as well as orange and green bags. They are all smashed together. It is a fun process. They are picked up and put in a hopper. They go up a conveyer belt. At the top, people pull the food bags into one container, the waste bags into another. They analyze the food bags weekly. You open the bags and see what is inside. This is a cost effective way to pull food scraps up the waste trail. FEBRUARY 6, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 3 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS She will give a high-level overview. Connecticut is facing a waste crisis. It is really the entire US. When you look at food waste management in the US, we throw our food away, all of our trash, in either a landfill or incinerator or waste to energy facility. Connecticut was one of the first states to ban landfills as not a preferred method and move straight to waste to energy facilities for trash disposal. The MERA facility was recently closed, which is a significant amount of the material that you were able to process. This is a look at what is happening in New England. The small chart is an EPA chart. FEBRUARY 6, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 4 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS In 1990, there were over 6,000 landfills in the US. Today, there are less than 1,000. The primary reason is that no one wants to have a landfill in their town, in their county, or state. She has worked in waste for 35 years and has travelled all over. People will say that they see lots of land from airplanes. They ask why we cannot put it there. The fact is that no one wants the landfill. When you try to site ne, large waste companies lobby and try to move forward, but is very difficult Landfills are closing more frequently than opening, we are reducing the available capacity for disposal. The grey line is New York State and the blue line is all of New England. Our total capacity in New York in 2025 drops significantly. In New England, by 2040, there will be no more landfills available unless one is built, but that will not help the problem. The other problem is waste to energy, which is prevalent in Connecticut. Those facilities have a 30-year life. There are 75 facilities remaining in the US. They handle a lot of waste. All but one is over 32 years old, so it is like an old person doing their job and they will keep doing it and then, all of sudden, won’t be able to anymore. This is to put it into context: it is not just a problem in Connecticut, but also a problem across the country. All state are looking at how to manage material better, which means moving more materials out of the waste stream and into the recycling stream or capturing that food waste. FEBRUARY 6, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 5 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS Food waste is an important target. It is equal to 60% of all emissions that come out of a landfill. It is also food scraps and the way we manage food scraps today equals about 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions. This is a really Signiant amount. Eight percent may seem low, but when you think about greenhouse gas emissions coming from factories and cars, 8% relates to the fact that we throw away food rather than digesting it ourselves or moving into a stream that could better manage it and capture that energy. With the pilot, you ill have orange bags and green bags in the district. The green bags are to capture food scraps. The bags are anaerobically digested. There is one anaerobic digester in Southington, CT. It is called biopower. The digester acts like a stomach: any food that you do not eat – bones, meat, banana peel, coffee grounds, and tea bags – are all digested into that. All of the calories that you did not eat turn into energy and the energy is moved to the electrical grid. The digester also creates digestate, a black matter. It is moved into the soil and mixed with leaves to create a soil amendment. In the case of quantum, they sell it to Scott’s fertilizer. It is a cost effective way to take care of a large portion of the waste stream, which is why we are piloting it. FEBRUARY 6, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 6 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS The district received a $350K grant and will participate in the pilot for the next year. There are orange bags approximately equal to two bags per week. There are 13-gallon trash bags and one food waste bag per week. They were given these bags up front, about 150 bags total for disposal for the year. If a resident runs out of bags, they are available at Only Natural and Walgreens. Toward the end of the year, they can buy bags at cost in rolls of five that cost under $1.60 per roll, adding that this is not expensive. We hope people continue with pilot. FEBRUARY 6, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 7 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS Food waste goes into the green bag. Trash goes into the orange bag. Both go into the same can. It is important not to use the black and white trash bags as they break in compaction. The orange and green bags make it easier for people to pull them into the right area and separate them. This seems like a crazy thing for the US, adding that it is not. They do it in Sweden, Belgium, and France as well as a couple of places in the US. FEBRUARY 6, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 8 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS This is what it looks like in an automated facility. The goal of this pilot is to demonstrate that residents are willing to separate food scrap and that enough is being sorted out to create investment in the State. It would help build automated facilities like those that they have in Oslo so that you would not have people puling the green bags out. There would be electronic eye able to spot the colored bag and move it to the right pile. FEBRUARY 6, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 9 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS Questions that have heard from resident include is the pilot going to cost more. She notes that it should not cost more because everyone received about $50 worth of bags, so, if you use those bags, you have save $50. If you need to buy extra bags, you have saved a little bit of money still. It should not cost anyone any more. FEBRUARY 6, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 10 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS Will the Town save money with the pilot? There should be some savings. The first part of the pilot is for gathering information and data, but we should see a diversion from the diversion. The food scarp tipping fee disposal is about $65/tom whereas you are closer to $100/ton. You should see a little bit of savings for food diverted. As we move into the future, waste tipping fees are expected to rise. We expect as you move into the program that it would be between $1M and $2M savings over the next four years. That savings could be given back to residents through the fee reduction. Part of the pilot process is to determine how you want to move forward and how it can best benefit all residents. FEBRUARY 6, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 11 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS Environmental impact – the best way to look at it is solar rooftop panels. There are about 2,000 homes in the district participating. Waste reduction from full participation would be equal to 3,200 solar rooftop panels, which is a significant environmental impact. FEBRUARY 6, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 12 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS She thinks an important thing is to encourage residents to use the orange bags as well as the green bags to make it easier for workers, who are separating the materials. When you use the black and white bags, it causes a bit of a safety problem. The workers are more likely to cut themselves on broken glass, which is loose from the bag breaking. It is safer to stick with the bags provided. How do I manage it at home? It is different. Kim (O’Rourke) has food scrap bins available. If you have a cat, bags fit a kitty litter bucket, and 8-galon bucket, so there are different ways to collect he food at home and keep the lid on to avoid odor. If you move forward with a permanent program, the bags will probably not have only one size option; there will probably be a couple of size options to meet everyone’s needs. The presenter offers to take any questions. The Chair calls on Councilman Vincent Loffredo. Councilman Loffredo asks if the school system is participating. The presenter replies, “No.” Councilman Loffredo asks if they district will be participating. The presenter states it depends on Kim’s answer. This pilot is to raise awareness and we do want everyone to participate. Councilman Loffredo states that here is no outreach to the children and their families. The presenter replies that she thinks it depends on the town. If you are in the inner district. West Haven and Ansonia are doing it citywide. If outreach goes to all of the schools. She thinks that Kim (O’Rourke) . . . let her go. Recycling Coordinator Kim O’Rourke states that she spoke at McDonough and McDonough School, spreading the word. It is tricky now as the focus is on the sanitation district. We are trying to touch the families in the district, working through the schools. The schools are separating food scraps in the kitchen, but not in the cafeteria. That is a whole other ball game. They are doing it well. Councilman Loffredo states that he mentors at one of the schools, the middle school, during the lunch period. There is a lot not being captured. The Chair states that is good information. He calls on Councilman Eugene Nocera. Councilman Nocera thanks the speaker for a great presentation. Our sanitation district is the initial pilot. He asks how the information is being provided. He asks if information has gone out or is that the plan. The presenter states that they started in November, right around Thanksgiving. All of the homes received a case of orange and green trash bags. They got literature, telling people, giving people information. They will do additional distribution this week.  FEBRUARY 6, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 13 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS The Chair calls on Councilwoman Jeanette Blackwell. Councilwoman Blackwell states that her presentation was excellent and that she is excited about the program. She asks where landfills are typically located. The presenter replies, “In environmental justice communities.” No one wants one. Councilwoman Blackwell asks about the pilot. The presenter state that there are some deliverables to DEEP for funding. We are looking at different paths forward and would love to engage any ideas that you have, any information that you hear from people in the district, problems they have, things that they like and don’t like We want to design something that works for everyone. Councilwoman Blackwell asks if the reports to DEEP will be quarterly. The presenter reiterates that it is a quarterly report. A deliverable is to give you guys this presentation today so everyone is on the same page. Middletown is one of three communities that has started out of 198 grants. Others are starting this week. Middletown is at 22% contaminations, which may sound like a lot, but makes you one of the top in the best in the country. You are really doing well. With more education and outreach, we can get that level down and the capture rate up. You are off to a good start. Councilwoman Blackwell states that her next question might be best delivered to Director Holden. She asks if the Council will receive copies of the quarterly reports. Director Holden replies that the reports can be sent to the Council, not a problem. Councilwoman Blackwell states that it was an excellent presentation. The Chair thanks the presenter and calls on Councilman Edward McKeon. Councilman McKeon states that he did not meant give any impression that he did not think that this is an important presentation. He wants to be clear that it is important. He thanks Kim for pioneering this effort. He lives in the participating district. He states that participation is simple. You simply need to make small changes as to how you get rid of your garbage. His question is, in terms of the people on the district, what is the participation rate. The presenter replies that they have not gauged participation rate yet. Over the next three (3) weeks they will have a handle on that Wet Haven and Ansonia are a little bit ahead of Middletown and have participation rates just under 50%. They have to work on getting it up. She estimates that Middletown is probably in the same range. Councilman McKeon states it was an excellent presentation and thank you for keeping it brief. The presenter thanks the Council for the time and reiterates that Middletown is one of the early participants in this project. 3. Questions to Directors Workshop Opens – Question of Regular Meeting Agenda Items The Chair opens Questions to Directors at 6:25 PM. The Chair calls on Councilman Eugene Nocera. Councilman Nocera states that since we have extended the time for this meeting, he asks his colleagues, by consensus to allow him to bring up the Director Finance to discuss briefly the Grand List report. He spoke about this at last week’s Finance & Government Committee meeting. It is important part of the upcoming budget process. Before Finance Director Erlacher begins, the Chair state that the regular meeting will begin at 7:00 PM. Director Carl Erlacher explains that, as everyone knows, the City went through a revaluation. The company went to just about every house. The Grant List grew by 25%. In a perfect world, noting he is not trying to alarm anyone . . . in a perfect world, the Grand List would go up 25% and the mill rate would drop 25%. We would collect the same dollars that we did before and operate as usual. He reiterates that this is in the perfect world. He explains that there is a subsection of the increase. The 25% has many different categories: personal property had a decrease; commercial real estate went up 16%; and motor vehicles went up only 9%. Residential increased 38% on average. We are talking about spending the same dollars, that is a bigger shift to residential and a smaller shift to the others. In dollars and cents for a typical house, it is about a 10% increase or $500 on a $5,000 tax bill, which is pretty much the norm. That being said, many factors can change that. We have not gotten the Governor’s proposal, which comes out Wednesday. The State is running at a $3B surplus, so, hopefully, we will get more money from the State. We will analyze all of the Department budgets. We will see if there are things that can be cut. We will look at our revenue. He notes that building permits went up, especially with all of the work at Wesleyan and around town. Conveyance fees are up because of a lot of real estate activity. Many things come into play. He does not want anyone to think that we are starting with a 10% tax increase on an average household yet. We will do our best. This is simply how the Grand List came out with a huge shift between the various categories as part of that Grand List. Director Erlacher states that he tried to present this information in layman’s terms. He asks if there are any questions. FEBRUARY 6, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 14 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS Councilman Nocera thanks Director Erlacher for this summary. He knows will affect their planning, noting that 10% is a huge number. We know what constituents are dealing with as Inflation is on the run. There are many variables. Director Erlacher replies, “Yes there are,” adding that they have not yet interviewed the departments or analyzed their budgets. The Governor’s budget is not out yet nor are the appropriations of State monies. That can change things. Our commercial customers do not have too much of a rise. Personal property will actually have a decrease. Some taxpayers will have . . . he notes that vacant land values went up. It depends on what you have, which will determine in a rise or an actual tax decrease. It is hitting home with residents. It just came out Tuesday, so it is hot off the press. The Chair calls on Councilman Philip Pessina. Councilman Pessina has no audio. He has a question for another director. The Chair calls on Councilwoman Jeanette Blackwell. Councilwoman Blackwell states that her question is not related to the budget. She states that it seems that we need to hope for the best and prepare for the worst. She asks Director Erlacher about agenda item 6G3 – Russell Library transfer. She reached out to Library Director Burkey. Her questions are to the wages and salaries that are being transferred in the amount of $96K. She would like Director Burkey to explain why those monies were not in her original budget when prepared. Director Erlacher replies that it is an appropriation request before the Council. He explains that a contract was negotiated with Russell Library. They usually make a provision for all contracts in salary reserve for City contract; however, they were not aware that there was a contract open last April and May. They kept the budget flat last year so that there was no tax increase. There was no provision for the library contract nor did the Council approve it. It was negotiated and approved by Russell Library Company. It came across to Finance and they worked with the library. In that review, they found that the actual cost of that contract was $96K. They wanted the Council to be aware of that as well as some different positions were increased. He did not want to change the budget without the Council knowing. There are now more librarians in one category rather than another. If it did not go before the Council, you would not see the actual costs. The Chair calls on Councilman Vincent Loffredo followed by Councilman Edward McKeon. Councilman Loffredo asks about the Assessor’s report. He notes that at this time of the year, the Council always receives a Grand List report. Assuming that we did not have revaluation, we would still receive a Grant List report. Putting aside the revaluation, that caused the substantial increase, he asks if Director Erlacher is aware of what the Grand List increase would have been without revaluation. Director Erlacher replies that, usually this report would have additions and deletions, but rarely does it change much, per se. Councilman Loffredo replies, “Yes,” adding that the change might be a few percentage points. Director Erlacher agrees, adding that this is a 38% increase. Councilman Loffredo states that he understands that, but is trying to get a sense (inaudible). Director Erlacher replies that he would have to go through the report with the Assessor. He believes that Councilman Loffredo did so last Tuesday. It is premature to do work on it until we get the kind of numbers . . . Councilman Loffredo states that it is part of the report, so we would know whether or not, in terms of economic development and growth. Director Erlacher replies that he does not think that there was much residential growth, per se, but, in terms of . . . Councilman Loffredo interjects, saying, “the commercial side.” Director Erlacher replies, “Yes,” there might have been some. Councilman Loffredo notes that an interesting thing is the PILOT decrease for Clean Energy of $57M. He asks if Director Erlacher can explain that. Director Erlacher states that is part of an agreement that the agreement has been in place for a long time, part of an agreement with Clean Energy. We also had one with Middletown Power. Councilman Loffredo asks if Director Erlacher revisited that item, as it is quite dramatic. Director Erlacher explains that was a fixed agreement, a 30-year agreement that was signed many years ago. Councilman Loffredo states that it would be helpful, as they get into the budgetary process, if Director Erlacher would revisit that and inform the Council. FEBRUARY 6, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 15 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS Director Erlacher replies that he can get a copy of that agreement to Council. The Chair notes that this is also something that the Assessor’s Office (inaudible) Councilman Loffredo replies that this would be very helpful. He states that they all became aware, as Director Erlacher did, that the contract was not handled in the budgetary process. In prior negotiations, we know that this this is a unique situation with a 5-year agreement. Director Erlacher states that he believes that it is a 3-year agreement. Councilman Loffredo states that the agreement in front of him . . . Director Erlacher notes that he believes that the contract is 2022 to 2025. Councilman Loffredo agrees and adds that the prior agreement had a 5-year term. As he understands it, this is piggybacking the settlement that the City entered into with AFSCME municipal employees. He asks Director Erlacher if that is his understanding. Director Erlacher replies that it looks so to him as it has the same increases that were given out as with AFSCME. Councilman Loffredo states that, looking at the agreement, the language starts off, saying that this is an agreement entered into by the Russell Library Company. He adds that the union is also mentioned. Councilman Loffredo asks if they fall under MERA (Municipal Employee Relations Act). Director Erlacher replies that he would have to check with legal, but he thinks the answer is yes. He reiterates that he is not certain. He explains that the City provides 98% of the Russell Library funding, but again, he is not sure about MERA. Councilman Loffredo states that even with the 5-year agreement, this Council was not around. He notes that some current Councilmembers may have been on the serving at that time. He asks if this agreement with the Russell Library Company is being funded by the library. Director Erlacher replies, “No,” noting that the City will pick up the brunt of it. Councilman Loffredo asks how much. Director Erlacher replies, “98% of it.” Councilman Loffredo asks if Russell Library Company contributes financially to any part of the salaries paid to their staff, to this agreement. Director Erlacher replies, “Not that he is aware of.” Councilman Loffredo states that they negotiate. They have to show that they have the ability – as the employer, the Russel Library Company – the fiscal ability to enter into the agreement and properly fund it. He states that what he is now being told is he Russell Library does not have the fiscal ability to enter into this contract. Director Erlacher replies that he is not sure what they can pay for out of their endowment, if they can pay salaries. He was aware of this contract at the end of December. Finance disclosed it so that Council would have the information, which is what he recommended to them. They were advised to go for an appropriation or the cost of the contract. As far as the particulars, no one had a seat at the table, so he really cannot tell them anything else. Councilman Loffredo states that his understanding is the library is following past procedures. What he is trying to understand legally, how is it possible for these negotiations to have proceeded as they did without prior acknowledgement that the City was going to have to come up with the funding for this contract. He has a couple of follow-up questions. He asks who provides the salaries to the employees in this contract. Director Erlacher replies that we (the City) pays those salaries. Councilman Loffredo asks whom would this payment would be from. Director Erlacher replies, “City of Middletown.” Councilman Loffredo asks who provides the pensions for these library employees. Director Erlacher replies, “The payroll office, the pension office.”’ Councilman Loffredo asks who provides their fringe benefits. Director Erlacher replies that the City does. Councilman Loffredo continues, stating that this agreement is not considered to be a municipal contract. FEBRUARY 6, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 16 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS Director Erlacher replies that the library department is part of the City’s General Fund. Councilman Loffredo concurs, adding that they come forward in the General Fund. He adds that the Council does not have all of the details on this agenda. What is on this agenda is the approval of prior minutes from January, or a few months ago. What the Council received are minutes, copies of the detailed report when Kori Wisneski (Deputy General Counsel) was in recent negotiations. This disclosure, for some reason, was not given to the Council at all. At the end of the day, the Council is pretty much after the fact with this contract. Director Erlacher replies that, if the question is whether the contract is already signed, yes it is. Councilman Loffredo points out that the agreement is not signed by the Mayor. He asks if that is correct. Director Erlacher replies, “Not that he is aware of.” Councilman Loffredo continues, saying that if the agreement were to be signed by the Mayor, then it would have to come before this Council to authorize the Mayor to sign. Director Erlacher replies, “That is correct.” Councilman Loffredo states that, at the end of the day, in terms of salaries benefits, pensions, and so forth, all of the financial resources come from the taxpayer of the City of Middletown. Director Erlacher replies, “Correct.” Councilman Loffredo thanks Director Erlacher. The Chair calls on Councilman Edward McKeon. Councilman McKeon states that, going back to the Grand List and the assessment, he is trying to go back to what Councilman Loffredo said: had there not been a revaluation, would we still be seeing about the same kind of percentage increase in taxation to keep us at a level spending in the City. Director Erlacher replies, “No,” adding that they would not have had a 25% increase in the Grand List. We will have a 25% decrease in the mill arte, which would be around 28 or so, if we kept flat spending. There is a tradeoff here, but the actual categories that make up that 25% was heavily skewed to residential. He adds that they would not have known that without a revaluation. Councilman McKeon states that he is still not 100% clear, but will ask two additional questions. One is we do the revaluation because we are required to do so by law. It is his understanding that they could have delayed this revaluation. He asks if this is correct and if this is something that Director Erlacher pursued. Director Erlacher replies that it cannot really be delayed; rather, they can request can extension to the legislature. That would had to have been done last year. Councilman McKeon asks if other cities have done that. Director Erlacher replies that he has seen this done in the past. Councilman McKeon state that his other question is about staging in or staggering evaluation so that it does not have as big an effect on the taxpayer. He knows that there is a law, saying that they can do that. The question is whether that would have a negative impact the City’s ability to fund its budget. Director Erlacher replies, “No,” adding that, if phased in, the assessments for commercial, or what have you, would be a lot higher now. It would be beneficial to some taxpayers, but not beneficial to other taxpayers with the phase in. The actual revaluation is a snapshot of a point in time and it is fixed for the next five years. The Assessor could probably give a more detailed answer than he is giving tonight. Councilman McKeon states that he knows that there is a state law that allows them to phase in the revaluation. Director Erlacher replies that he believes that is done over two years, if he is not mistaken. Councilman McKeon states that he understands that it can be over two years, but not over five years. Director Erlacher replies, “Yes.” Councilman McKeon states that he will provide that law to his colleagues, adding that it is something that the Common Council decides. It is something that the Council needs to take into consideration. Thank you. The Chair calls on Councilman Grady Faulkner, Jr., noting that the question is not for Director Erlacher. The Chair thanks Director Erlacher for his participation. The Chair calls on Councilwoman Jeanette Blackwell, asking if her questions for Director Erlacher. (Inaudible) FEBRUARY 6, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 17 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS The Chair calls on Councilman Grady Faulkner, Jr. Councilman Faulkner states that his question is about ARPA versus CDBG (Community Development Block Grant). His question is do these two programs overlap. At Citizens Advisory Committee, they are waiting to see CDBG. He notes that they have not been meeting, so he is curious about this. The Chair asks General Counsel Brig Smith to speak to this item. Attorney Smith states that they do not overlap. He notes that the ARPA rubric that they have been using was adapted from the CDBG rubric just because it is a good format. The actual funding sources and rules are completely different. Councilman Faulkner reiterates that there is no overlap. Attorney Smith replies, “No, sir.” The Chair calls on Councilman Edward McKeon, asking if his question is for Attorney Smith. Councilman McKeon states that he has an ARPA question, specifically about the branding campaign. He saw the spreadsheet and what was asked for and what is proposed. He asks for more information about that branding campaign. Attorney Smith replies that he will do his best. The branding campaign had asked for $272K. The recommendation from the Task Force is $160K. The idea is to look at a new logo for the City similar to what New Britain and other cities have done. It would not take away from the venerable City seal, but would have a fresh look for the City. They will hire a consultant to do that graphic design. Once a logo is developed and adopted, remaining funds would be used to do rebranding along the corridors: Downtown, Main Street and Newfield corridors. That is the project and the ask. Councilman McKeon asks who made the presentation and who the consultant is. Attorney Smith replies that they do not and that this proposal came out of the Economic Development Office. Councilman McKeon states that he has HR (Human Resources) questions. He asks if either Attorney Smith (General Counsel) or Attorney Wisneski (Deputy General Counsel) would be appropriate to answer these questions. Attorney Smith replies that he will do his best. Councilman McKeon states that the Council has before it two ordinance about residency requirements. One is a waiver and the other is to remove a position from residency requirements altogether. He ask for background. Attorney Smith starts with the one removing the position entirely, noting that position would be Director of Human Resources. He explains that this used to be a department level director position, a department head. It is now a division head under his office, Office of General Counsel. It is no longer a department head. The last two (2) directors were not City residents. Both had waivers. If one looks at the ordinances, generally, some director positions are listed. Some are not. Some deputy director positions are listed. Others are not. There are a number of reasons with respect to this particular position, and this particular person, that it makes sense to do this now. It is critically important to do it now. He will not go into all of it on the record. He reiterates that it is critically important. Generally speaking, an HR director deals with people on their best and worst days. An HR director is going to be in charge, among other things, having to discipline someone, bring terrible news, as much as a termination, then that person will go Stop & Shop and run into that very same person. It is very difficult. These are several of the reasons that he can go into here as to why that ordinance is being proposed to remove that position entirely. The second is with respect to the residency waiver for the deputy police chief. The deputy police chief lives 2 minutes, plus or minus, away from downtown area. He has worked for the City 20+ years. He lived in Middletown up until about 10 years ago. There is a one-year residency waiver. He notes that the Council has done this for positions before, adding that, looking at the ordinances, it goes person by person. In fact, the Council just did this for Police Chief Costa, who had something come up and made a request. There is a waiver in that ordinance for the person and that position. That is how this is a little different, but it is a residency waiver request. Councilman McKeon states that he has another question. He asks, in the case of taking the HR director out because it is division head, he asks if there are any other positions because the City has been reorganized a few times. Are there any other positions that have become division heads or, in the other case, any new department with new directors, who ought to be considered as to whether they should be considered residency requirement or not. Attorney Smith replies that there may well have been, but he cannot say off the top of his head. Councilman McKeon states that his second question is, because a waiver was issued for the Police Chief, does that put the Council in the position where precedent has been set. If someone comes to work, they can ask for a waiver other residency requirements that the Council is obliged to provide it because it has been done in the past. Attorney Smith replies that there is no legal obligation to do so. FEBRUARY 6, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 18 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS Councilman McKeon has one more question for Attorney Smith. They had a special meeting of the Economic Development Commission last week to talk about the proposed change in the tax abatement relationship with the developer. It changes the situation with being able to go to the bank and get what they need because of the tax abatement or lack therefor. He asks Attorney Smith to explain. Attorney Smith states that he does not know if he can explain it better, but he can explain it in more words. Newfield Apartment project is going through refinancing they anticipated this. You may recall that we previously authorized an assignment from one LLC to another, which is typical. The financing, as he understands is for the first phase of the project. The financing folks are saying that they want to be sure that they have a corporate stand alone with respect to the LLC for Phase One. Currently, it is Phase One and Phase Two. What the Council has in front of it is a resolution, sort of like the last time. It would authorize transfer of the agreement from one LCC to another. They are literally doing work in the name of the LLC. The LLC members remain the same. Councilman McKeon thanks Attorney Smith. He adds that the actual development plans have changed slightly as well in this process, which is something be considered. The Chair calls on Councilwoman Jeanette Blackwell for Attorney Smith. Councilwoman Blackwell states, as a follow-up to Councilman McKeon’s comments on the waivers, she asks that he share the agenda that they had related to these two items on the General Counsel Commission (GCC) meeting last Thursday. Attorney Smith states that, in part, deferring to Councilwoman Blackwell, because we keep talking about waivers for people as issues come up, and because we are looking at taking a position out. With respect to what Councilman McKeon said as to what is changing, GCC will be looking at a couple of potential options for a broad change in its entirety. One option would to be to remove the residency requirement -- full stop – providing that people live within 25 miles or 25 minutes. Councilwoman Blackwell states that it says 25. The conversation at the prior GCC was 15, both of which are arbitrary in her opinion. The mileage has changed. The radius has changed. Attorney Smith states that the starting point is to say if the radius makes sense and, if so, what. The other scenario would be limiting it to emergency responders rather than government employees. Councilwoman Blackwell notes that there is a third option: that is to leave the requirement as it is and explore other positions. She states that she is looking forward to this discussion and the she has evolved in her position with this issue. She thinks it is important to have this conversation. They will have this conversation with this entire body. The Chair notes that Councilman Philip Pessina is looking to ask a question and that we will need to wrap-up Questions to Directors and head into the regular meeting. The Chair calls on Councilman Philip Pessina. Councilman Pessina asks for Central Communications Director Wayne Bartolotta. Councilman Loffredo asks, as appoint of order, if they are stopping questions for General Counsel. The Chair replies, “Yes.” Councilman Loffredo asks if he will be able to ask questions of the General Counsel during their regular meeting. The Chair replies that they will have to do it that way. Councilman Pessina ask Director Bartolotta how any dispatchers that are down Director Bartolotta replies, “Five.” Councilman Pessina states that is between the start of the fiscal year and now. Director Bartolotta explains that they had 19 of 20 positions filled at the start of the fiscal year. They lost three in sequence over three month: retirement, transfer, or resignation. Councilman Pessina asks for a thumbnail as to what has been done to try to decrease overtime costs that they are experiencing. Director Bartolotta explains that when they are down, they have to maintain a minimum of four people. With 18 dispatchers, they are fine until someone calls out. A couple of the shifts depending on the day of the week. With 18, it is not bad. When you drop below 18, it begins a week that you have to hire because you are short shifted. That is 40 hours a week with 17. It goes to be even more when you have 16. That is guaranteed. That does not include vacation, sick leave, personal time, or any of that. That does not include other issues with MLA, military leave, and covid. He explains that, at one point, half of the department was out with covid. These issues in this fiscal year cost $120K. Of the $120K, $80K was the staffing shortage. That is the problem. It is not only a problem here. It is good pay and benefits. That is not the issue. It a statewide and nationwide problem because it is getting people to work. They are hiring two, trying to hire three, at one shot. They have one starting next week, one  FEBRUARY 6, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 19 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS completing background check, and one who may not complete that background check. They are doing everything they can, including creating an extra trainer. The have to get the people in to be able to train. Councilman Pessina does not want to belabor the issue. He asks if Director Bartolotta has had this experience over several years. Director Bartolotta explains that, over the past four years, they have appropriated about $11K per year. It has essentially gone up and down, adding that they go from high to low in batches. Councilman Pessina asks what Director Bartolotta has done to try to curb this. Police officers are filling in and have to be paid overtime. He ask if the director and Deputy Director fall in line or is that against labor. Director Bartolotta states that is against labor. What they have done is create a second trainer. He reiterates that they are trying to hire three people at once. They are using the Deputy Director to train the third person. They were looking for a certified person, who would require less training. They are trying to train during two or here different shifts. Councilman Pessina states that the trainer occupies one of the positions, and is not taken offline. Director Bartolotta replies, “No.” There are two of them Councilman Pessina states it is exasperating that we continue to see this every year. He wonders what the plan is to correct this. He asks if police officers can fill in. Director Bartolotta replies that they can fill in, but a few things about the police officers. Their first responsibility is to the police department and, at times, there is a heavy use on the police side so they cannot come over to work at central communications. They use a police officer about 6 hours a week, noting that it is a great help. Councilman Pessina thanks Director Bartolotta, asking that he keep an eye on this and get his plan to the Council as to how to correct this. Thank you. The Chair calls on Councilman Eugene Nocera. Councilman Nocera assures everyone that he has to commend the telecommunications staff for all they are doing. It is a nationwide problem. Our Director has made everyone aware of where we are and what we need to do to rectify this situation. Congratulations to our staff for what they are doing. Director Bartolotta states thanks his staff for being sure to maintain the 911 center. There has been no service impact. When someone calls 911, the phones are being answered. There is no difference in service for taxpayers. That is most important: that people get help when needed. 4. Questions to Directors Workshop – Closes There being no further questions, the Chair closes Questions to Directors at 7:04 PM. He asks that Director either stay for the regular meeting in the Chamber or via WebEx. 5. Adjournment Councilman Eugene Nocera moves to adjourn. Councilwoman Jeanette Blackwell seconds the motion. There being no discussion, the Chair calls for voice vote. The motion is unanimously approved by a vote of 11-0 (AYE: Councilmembers Blackwell, Carta, Faulkner, Ford, Gennaro, Loffredo, Marino, McKeon, Nocera, Pessina, and Salafia; ABSENT: Councilman Mangiafico.) The matter is approved. The meeting is adjourned at 7:01 PM ATTEST: LINDA S.K. REED, COMMON COUNCIL CLERK K: review/minutes/ 2023 Feb 06 Ques to Dir 6 Feb 2023