Common Council

COMMON COUNCIL MIDDLETOWN CONNECTICUT SPECIAL MEETING QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS MONDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2023 6:00PM MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Common Council of the City of Middletown, Questions to Directors Workshop, was held on Monday, October 2, 2023, 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 Councilwoman 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 Hon. Benjamin Florsheim, Mayor Linda Reed, Clerk of the Common Council Sgt. DiMassa, Middletown Police - Sergeant-at-Arms Also, Present: City/Town Clerk – Ashley Flynn-Natale Communications – Wayne Bartolotta, Directors Economic & Community Development – Christine Marques, Director Equal Opportunity & Diversity Management – Faith Jackson, Director Finance – Carl Erlacher, CPA Fire Department – John Woron, Fire Chief General Counsel – Brig Smith, Esq. Health – Kevin Elak, Director Library – Ramona Burkey, Director Police Department – Eric Costa, Police Chief; Richard Davis, Deputy Chief, Capt. John Lozefski, Sgt. DiMassa, Sergeant-at-Arms Public Works – Christopher Holden, PE, Director Recreation -- Cathy Lechowicz, Director Water & Sewer – Joseph Fazzino, Director Youth Services, Justin Carbonella, Manager Absent: Arts & Culture – Kisha Michael, Coordinator Assessor -- Damon Braasch, CCMA II Human Resources Division – Justin Richardson, Division Director Land Use – Marek Kozikowski, AICP Technology Services – Brianna Skowera, Director 1. Call to Order The Chair calls the meeting to order at 6:02 PM. He welcomes everyone to the Common Council’s Special Meeting, the Questions to Directors Workshop. A. Pledge of Allegiance The Chair asks everyone to join him reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. B. Council Clerk Reads the Call of the Meeting and Mayor declares call a legal call and meeting a legal meeting 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 OCTOBER 2, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 2 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS The Chair opens the Questions to Directors session at 6:05 PM. The Chair calls on Councilman Eugene Nocera Councilman Eugene Nocera asks Attorney Brig Smith, General Counsel to the podium to speak to agenda item 10B, the resolution addressing the residency question, involving Police Chief Costa. The Council will be considering this resolution during the regular meeting. Councilman Nocera reads from the proposed resolution: “. . . that Police Chief Costa either (a) immediately comply with the residency ordinance requirement, or (b) if not, then he be terminated for failure to comply.” He asks Attorney Smith to review this with the Council. Attorney Smith states that this proposed resolution speaks to Ordinance Section 74-30, That Ordinance requires certain non-union employees, including the Police Chief, to become permanent City employees as a condition of employment. It applies to non-union employees, adding that if applied to union employees, there would be a MERA (Municipal Employees Relations Act) violation, which is why the ordinance says “non-union.” The Ordinance states: Permanent residency" is hereby defined for the purpose of this section as being domiciled within the City of Middletown and actually residing within the City, and this requirement is not met by maintaining a mailing address or post office box within the City. Attorney Smith states that he has reviewed this and has spoken with the Chief. It is clear that the Chief is domiciled in, and actually residing in, the City of Middletown. He understands that the Chief’s residential address is here, his voting registration is here, and his driver’s license registration is here, and he is living here. These indicate very clearly that he resides here. A question has arisen as to the difference between “domiciled” and “residency,” adding that ordinance refers to both. He states that Councilwoman Salafia sent out an article that actually soaks to that distinction. He opines that the article that was sent is a Florida article, referring to a State law in Florida, but there is an example that is constructive, He reads from the article: Madeline and Joseph live in Florida, but still own their Massachusetts residence. They have shown an intent to change their domicile to Florida by opening accounts at a local bank, getting Florida licenses, and registering to vote in Florida. Through their actions, Floridian can now be considered their residence and domicile State. Attorney Smith states that is Florida, adding that Connecticut law is very similar. There are two (2) things for domicile: actual residence and intention of making that residence your home. The Connecticut Supreme Court has said that you need these two (2) things: first, residence and, second, the intention to make it the home of the party. It is the fact coupled the intention of remaining there. In Connecticut, the law says, although not dispositive, things like a driver’s license, voter registration, mailing address are indicative of domicile. He states that the Chief resides here, that he has stated that it is intent to remain, here, making this his home – he wants to keep this as his home -- and, as he said, the indicia are all here in Middletown, He concludes that it is a fairly open and shut case that he (the Chief of Police) is domiciled within, and resides within, the City. The Chair calls on Councilwoman Linda Salafia Councilwoman Linda Salafia states that first we are hearing the he is registered to vote here license here. Attorney Smith replies that these are questions that he doesn’t have answers. These are just representations Councilwoman Salafia states that we have not been provided with that information. Attorney Smith replies that he does not know what she has been provide with. The Chair calls on Councilman Anthony Gennaro, Sr. Councilman Anthony Gennaro, Sr. notes that Attorney Smith is throwing things at them with the word “domiciled. He states that there must be legal definitions as well. He asks if that definition provides for family. Attorney Smith replies, “I’m sorry.” Councilman Gennaro repeats the question, asking if it includes “family.” Attorney Smith replies that he doesn’t understand the question. Councilman Gennaro repeats the word: “Family.” Attorney Smith replies that there is nothing in case law that says anything about family. Councilman Gennaro asks if there is case law on family. Attorney Smith states that he just gave it to him. Attorney Smith asks if Attorney Smith gave them case law. Attorney Smith replies, ”Yeah,” adding that it’s a quote from the Supreme Court. OCTOBER 2, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 3 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS Councilman Gennaro asks if there is case law beyond what Councilwoman Salafia provided. Attorney Smith replies that he provided the quote from the (Connecticut) Supreme Court is “. . . two things that must concur for domicile: first residence and, secondly, the intention of making it the home of the party.” He repeats: it is the fact coupled with the intention of remaining there. It is Hartford v McDonald Trust Company (1926). It has basically kept that standard for almost 100 years. Councilman Gennaro states that what he is asking is that the Chief’s family does not need to live with him. He continues noting that he read the article in the paper. He has no problem with the Chief renting an apartment, living in the town and renting an apartment. In the article, the Chief is quoted as saying that, in time, he intends to be living here fully. It suggests that he is not fully living here now, although he has an apartment. He reiterates that these are the Chief’s own comments in the article. He is confused about that. He also wants to be clear that he does not oppose waiving the requirement. It feels like déjà vu. He notes that he does not believe that Attorney Smith was here at the time the McMann incident occurred. Attorney Smith replies, “No.” Councilman Gennaro continues, saying that he was patrolman then and it caused a lot of turmoil in the department. He wants to avoid seeing this happen again. A year ago, they were here and he argued that this ordinance should be changed. It should be fixed, without question. Here we are again skirting around the true intent of the language. He recalls the issues with the then-Republican Mayor and the then-Democrat Common Council. He didn’t like how it looked than and does not like how it looks now. The optics are bad. We should have changed it, modified it. It is also not fair to the Chief. He now has to go out and rent an apartment, He is also a family man. It is not fair that we are requiring that he stay here, to rent an apartment and pay those kind of fees. We all know what it looks like. As a parent, a father, and a former police officer, he does not think it is fair. He notes that police officers, including the Chief, spend a lot of time away from their families as it is. Now look at what we are doing here because we did not do our work this past year. Also, we have the Deputy Chief coming up soon, The Deputy Chief does live closer to Middletown than the Chief, but will he have to rent an apartment, too, and then go back to see his family even though he lives only 15 minutes away? This is not a personal issue. He does think that, in the future, adding that Attorney Smith may be able to help the Council correct this ordinance. We have been going over and over it for years now. Why can’t we fix it? It’s a simple fix and it should be done. It is not fair to the Chief, to the citizens and taxpayers who say, “Not this again.” He reiterates that he ordinance should be fixed and make things right for both sides. Without getting technical on the language here, he hopes that they can get this done, if not tonight, in the future. The Chair calls on Councilman Vincent Loffredo, noting that this is Questions to Directors. Councilman Vincent Loffredo replies that he understands and asks the following question. He asks that Attorney Smith clarify. He notes that Attorney Smith cited the State Supreme Court and the current ordinance. Moreover, he notes that Attorney Smith declared that the ordinance is being complied with Attorney Smith replies. “Yes.” Councilman Loffredo continues, saying that Attorney Smith explained that it is being complied with because the standards as determined by the State Supreme Court, when we use the term “permanent residency” one must be domiciled and to be “domiciled” means whether with a house or some other way, noting that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of apartment dwellers in the City. That is a choice. So correctly, if someone ha is registered, has a license, voting registration, or any other registration, then someone is domiciled in the City. Councilman Loffredo asks, “That is being attested to, correct?” Attorney Smith replies, “Yes.” Councilman Loffredo continues, stating that Attorney Smith had an interview with the Police Chief to see if he was in compliance. Attorney Smith replies, “Yes.” Councilman Loffredo ask Attorney Smith what the Chief said. Attorney Smith replies that the Chief said: that he has all of these indicia that this is his home, and that he intends to keep it his home. Councilman Loffredo asks if the Chief is meeting the terms and conditions of when he applied for this position, noting that the Chief did receive a couple of waivers. At some point, knowing that there would be no more further waivers than he received, he would be meet the terms and conditions of the ordinance. Attorney Smith replies, “Yes.” Councilman Loffredo addresses Attorney Smith, asking, “And he (the Chief) does comply?” Attorney Smith replies, “Yes.” A Councilmember (unidentified) asks Attorney Smith to define “indicia.” OCTOBER 2, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 4 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS Attorney Smith replies that it is “lawyer” for indicators. The Chair calls on Councilwoman Jeanette Blackwell followed by Councilman Michael A. Marino. Councilwoman Jeanette Blackwell asks Attorney Smith if he can clarify. He has indicated that there are two (2) components: you have to be an actual resident coupled with the intent of making this our permanent home. She asks Attorney Smith to speak to these two elements. Attorney Smith replies that residence is fairly clear. It has all the things that we already talked about. The key for the domicile argument is “what is the intent.” If the Chief says, “This is my home, this is where I live, and this is where I intend to stay.” Attorney Smith opines that this is the beginning and the end of the inquiry. That is what is key under a domicile inquiry. Councilwoman Blackwell notes that they are supposed to be asking questions, but her concern is that this obviously has implications for the Deputy Police Chief as well. Correct? Attorney Smith replies that he does not know, adding that he would have to look into the Deputy Chief’s status. Councilwoman Blackwell notes that the Deputy Police Chief does not reside in the City of Middletown, so tonight’s decision will it not have implications for the decision that we make with respect to the Deputy. Attorney Smith reiterates that it may or may not, adding that there is a lot that would have to occur between now and whenever that is. The Chair calls on Councilman Michael A. Marino. Councilman Michael A. Marino has one questions. He asks Attorney Smith, if, because he has said that the Chief has a driver’s license, is registered to vote, and all that, would he – or anybody for that matter – be in compliance if he has an apartment in paper only. In other words, someone rents and can provide all of that information, parks the City vehicle there, and drives a vehicle home to their personal house, wherever that may be, wherever their family resides. He asks if that would still apply simply because he presented those elements, if it still constitutes being “domiciled.” Attorney Smith replies that these are indicia of what “domiciled” is. What is key is where his home is and what his intent is. If he states that this is his home and that he is keeping this as his home, that’s what matters for domiciled. He reiterates that this is what the Chief said. Councilman Marino asks Attorney Smith if it would just be easier if they changed the ordinance or got rid of it altogether. They went through General Counsel Commission and were trying to expand and help out as much as they could, but were eventually under the impression that everyone want the ordinance to stay as it was, adding “and here we are.” He notes that according to the newspaper (Middletown Press) everyone was suddenly shocked that they were asking for answers to the questions that the Council first asked a year ago. Councilman Marino repeats the question to Attorney Smith: You do agree that it would be easier if this body would just change the definite so we don’t need to worry about it, or, as we said a year ago, it will continue to say, “You do this and we’ll tell you not to do it again.” Councilman Marino states that he does not believe that this serves the citizens of Middletown in the right way. Attorney Smith replies that this is his legal advice and is a “policy call for you all.” He adds that the legal principle is “My name is Paul and that’s between you all,” adding that this is a Supreme Court case. He states that he will provide a copy. The Chair calls on Councilman Philip Pessina followed by Councilman Anthony Mangiafico. Councilman Philip Pessina states that listening to Councilman Marino’s point, and to Councilwoman Blackwell, he wants to suggest to Councilman Loffredo. He opines that Attorney Smith completely gave the correct (inaudible) the Supreme Court of Connecticut, noting that we all fly under the same flag. He states that Chief Costa has met the requirements of “domicile.” Correct? Attorney Smith replies, “Yes.” Councilman Pessina continues, saying that, respectfully, he would ask his colleagues that, when it comes time for this resolution to come forward, maybe we ought to look at a motion to remove it with the pretense that the argument about domicile we should take out. We should send it back to GCC (General Counsel Commission) for further consideration is that our Deputy Chief does not have to go through this same situation. This is common sense: if this is what needs to be done, respectfully, this is that way we should head and not waste time. He opines that, respectfully, it seems to go to one word – domicile – and we already got the definition from the Connecticut Supreme Court. He asks why they are spinning their wheels. Let’s stay in our lane. Let’s bring it back. He would make a motion later on – or if someone wants to jump on the wagon and make it -- move it off the agenda and get the “domicile” issue to where it belongs because Councilman Mike (Marino) alluded to it: that here was discussion and should be ongoing. He says that respectfully to all of his colleagues. Thank you. OCTOBER 2, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 5 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS The Chair calls on Councilman Anthony Mangiafico followed by Councilman Edward McKeon. Councilman Anthony Mangiafico states that he agrees with Councilman Pessina that it (the resolution) should be removed from the agenda. He adds that he has a question about the actual language. He asks Attorney Smith if, in his opinion, he believes that Chief Costa has met the residency requirement, correct. Attorney Smith replies, “Yes.” Councilman Mangiafico states that, as written, the resolution says that the Chief has not met the residency requirement. When it is time to vote, he notes that he doesn’t understand how they are supposed to vote if the resolution is actually not accurate. Attorney Smith replies that the cleanest way to do it is to have a straight up or down vote on the resolution. If there is opposition on to the resolution, you vote “No” on the resolution. If there is support, then support it. The separate question is to suggest again to GCC (General Counsel Commission) that hey take up the ordinance itself. They would look at Section 74-30 apart from the resolution. That would be the easiest way to do it. Councilman Mangiafico states that his question is, “If they vote ‘Yea’ for this resolution, what does that mean?” Attorney Smith replies that, if someone votes “yea,” what you are saying is that the Chief does not reside here, is not domiciled here, and that Council supports the recommendation that the Mayor fire him. Councilman Mangiafico replies, saying, ‘If we vote “Nay,” we do not support that.” Attorney Smith replies that if you are opposed . . . if you are opposed to that -- to the thought that the Chief ought to be fired – then you vote no. The Chair calls on Councilman Edward McKeon. Councilman Edward McKeon states that, to reiterate, if a councilperson is unhappy with the residency requirements, is a councilperson able to bring language forward to GCC (General Counsel Commission) and the Common Council. Attorney Smith replies, “Yes.” Councilman McKeon asks how that language is changed, specifically what is the process to change the language. Attorney Smith replies that GCC has already looked at this and probably has a draft or two of section 74-30 and the potential to do that. For GCC, just pick it back up and look at it again. Councilman McKeon asks, if a councilmember has a concern with the way the language is now, then anyone on the Council can bring it. . . . (Inaudible). Attorney Smith interjects, saying, “Absolutely, absolutely,” adding just not to be too picayune. Councilman McKeon reiterates his question: “Relative to the ordinance, what is the process?” Attorney Smith replies, not to be too picayune, adding that is his job. Because it is an ordinance, anyone can suggest whatever they would like; however, it does need to go through GCC. Ultimately, the Council rules. Councilman McKeon continues, saying that the final thing is that the Couric votes. It is not (inaudible) Attorney Smith replies, “No,” noting that it’s a regular ordinance. Councilman McKeon continues, noting that it is an ordinary ordinance, passing with a simple majority. Attorney Smith replies, “Yup.” Councilman McKeon ads that if it does not pass with a majority vote, then it fails. Attorney Smith quips, “Yes,” adding it is like school house rocks. The Chair calls on Councilman Eugene Nocera. Councilman Eugene Nocera states that, for clarity, GCC (General Counsel Commission) did review the residency procedures that the City uses for some three (3) months. Caucus also looked at it. The final result of that three (3) month deliberation was to leave it alone and we have. He notes that there wasn’t a majority will of the body to change it. Therefore, today, we have a resolution that we either vote up or down based on our knowledge of the resolution Personally, he Is not in favor of sending it back to GCC again, for a 4th month. They have already made a decision to leave it as is. The majority caucus had ample time to make changes and chose not to. Thank you. OCTOBER 2, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 6 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS The Chair asks of there are any other questions for Attorney Smith. There are no additional questions for Attorney Smith. OCTOBER 2, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 7 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS OCTOBER 2, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 8 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS OCTOBER 2, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 9 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS OCTOBER 2, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 10 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS OCTOBER 2, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 11 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS OCTOBER 2, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 12 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS OCTOBER 2, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 13 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS OCTOBER 2, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 14 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS The Chair asks if there are any questions for other directors. The Chair calls on Councilwoman Jeanette Blackwell. Councilwoman Jeanette Blackwell calls Russell Library Director Ramona Burkey to the podium. She notes, as she discussed with Director Burkey earlier today, she would be calling her up this evening for some brief questions, affording her time to prepare. Her first question is “What is the status of the investment fund grant?” The second question is a description of the cohort of participants, some 690 children, who are these children. The last question is the status on vacancies. Thank you. Director Burkey replies, as far as the Community Investment planning grant, she has not heard from the State yet as to whether or not they are successful in this grant effort. They hope to hear soon. There was a meeting last week, but, as a potential grantee, they have not been notified of any decisions yet. She continues explaining for those, who may not know, this grant application is for a potential $250K reimbursement to the City for the capital planning and consulting expenses that they plan expending over the next several months. The next topic is Summer Reading. Director Burkey notes that 690 children participated in summer reading at the library. That is up about 13% over last summer. Of the 690 children, 176 children were between ages 0-5 years and 514 children were between ages 6 to -12 years. They also had a smaller program for teen and adults. There were eight (8) teens signed up for summer reading along with and 71 adults. They do not have figures as to whether or not they are Middletown residents. She only knows anecdotally that the vast majority are City residents. Councilwoman Blackwell states that it good that the little ones are reading. Director Burkey replies, “Yes,” adding that they had a great summer and look forward to more engagement next summer. Councilwoman Blackwell continues, asking about the vacant positions. Director Burley replies that there are a lot of vacant positions at the library. There are two (2) vacant, full- time library clerk positions, two (2) vacant library associate positions, a library assistant position, and two (2) frozen clerk positions, which were frozen as part of this year’s budget process. The process, like other departments is that someone leaves or retires, we post the union position in-house for a given period of time. You see if any fellow union members wish to apply. If no one applies, or is there no appropriate in- house candidates, the job vacancy is posted for the public and go through that process. It can take a couple of months to get someone into a position. Also, here in Middletown, if someone has time on the books that needs to be paid out, we have to run out that time on the clock, so we cannot start someone in that position when that other person leaves, that adds to the time. They have had retirements, internal promotions, which have to back-filled and requires the in-house and out-of-house postings, interviewing, and so forth. There are currently seven (7) vacant positions. There is also one pending retirement this Fall and potentially a couple of others. Councilwoman Blackwell asks how these positions are posted. Director Burkey replies that, per union contract, they are posted in-house to the members of the Russell Library employee union for seven (7) working days. If no one applies, there are a number of places to post in the City, including various ListServs, to try to get as wide a pool of applicants as possible. Councilwoman Blackwell suggests that they talk off-line about how to expand that pool. Director Burkey replies, “Absolutely.” Councilwoman Blackwell adds that there may be other ways to advertise those positions. Director Burkey replies, “Absolutely, that would be great.” The Chair calls on Councilman Edward McKeon. Councilman Edward McKeon asks Police Chief Erik Costa to the podium. He indicates that he does not know the extent of the Chief’s involvement, but they will be talking about Route 9 at every meeting. There was a bad accident on Route 9 last week. He asks Chief Costa if he can share any general details about it. Chief Costa explains that at Miller Street and southbound Route 9, a vehicle with two (2) people inside went to cross the southbound lanes of travel. Volume conditions very difficult visibility from Miller Street. They entered Route 9. The right lane had slowed to a stop, but left lane had not. They were impacted by a car in that left lane, T-boned on the left side. Passenger was ejected. Driver was seriously injured. They are currently hospitalized. From what we have heard, they are life-changing injuries. As of right now, this is the last report received. OCTOBER 2, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 15 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS Councilman McKeon states that he is not sure whether or not Chief Costa had arrived in town when the DOT (Department of Transportation) had promised -- probably six (6) years ago -- to fix that problem. He asks Chief Costa if he knows what DOT has done to fix it. Chief Costa replies that he does not believe that anything has been done to fix it other than signage. He adds that there is signage, which is the first question that was asked after this situation. There is signage across the median: “Right Turn Only.” Councilman McKeon states that it is his recollection that, when it was suggested to DOT that there is a problem, they said that they would take care of it in a matter of months. He reiterates that it has been about six (6) years since DOT made that promise. DOT has spent a lot of money fixing other problems on Route 9, but this is a problem. Councilman McKeon notes that school buses go in and out of there. Chief Costa replies, “Yes,” noting that this was also mentioned. Councilman McKeon continues, noting that there are school buses going in and out of the highway, bringing children to school. He asks if there is any other access. Chief Costa replies that Portland Street is an access to that neighborhood. Councilman McKeon asks if that is open or closed. Chief Costa replies that they would have to go to Hartford Avenue to gain access to St. John’s Square to Route 9, if they close that Route 9 intersection. Councilman McKeon asks, with respect to Route 9 – noting that this is a separate question – it will send d more vehicles onto our side streets, including more vehicles to our main thoroughfares like Washington Street. There was an accident at the corner of Washington and High Street yesterday, Chief Costa indicates that the accident occurred at the corner of Washington and Main Street. It was a driver eastbound on Route 66, towards Route 9, went through a red light and hit vehicle entering intersection. That was the cause of that accident, which is being investigated as a DUI incident. Councilman McKeon notes, “DIU.” His final question is that, as of yesterday, there is a red light law, which allows cities to decide which intersections are dangerous and to place red lights. He asks if the City will be able to place red lights on State roads. Chief Costa replies that State roads will be dealt with by the State. From what he is hearing, noting that he sits on the State Traffic Safety Commission and the Police Chiefs’ Association, that sounds like the State will put those lights in, regardless of what the cities say. When it comes to our City streets, the initiative will be taken by the Council. Councilman McKeon notes that we have no control. In other words, if we decide that an intersection is . . . Chief Costa indicates that he believes that they will listen to us. Councilman McKeon asks, if we decide that several of them . . . (inaudible). We are doing a lot of traffic studies now to determine where accidents are occurring in Middletown. Chief Costa replies that this is where the traffic picks up, it is going to be an issue. Councilman McKeon thanks Chief Costa. The Chair calls on Councilman Eugene Nocera. Councilman Eugene Nocera replies that he does not have any questions for Chief Costa. The Chair calls on Councilman Vincent Loffredo. Councilman Vincent Loffredo replies that Councilman Nocera was looking to call Attorney Brig Smith back to the podium. Councilman Eugene Nocera asks Attorney Smith to speak to resolution item 10C, repurposing of $75K funds previously allocated for the housing education program. He would like Attorney Smith to explain how that was determined. Attorney Smith replies, asking if Connecticut Home Collective is what Councilman Nocera is talking about. Councilman Nocera replies, “Yes.” Attorney Smith states that the program is a $75K appropriation by the Common Council to Connecticut Home Collective to do education for renters, owners, brokers, and potential homeowners to say: this is what the market is like; how to own a home, buy a home, and sell a home. Working with Sasha Crockett OCTOBER 2, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 16 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS and the Connecticut Home Collective crew, trying get this off the ground, they say some of the same hurdles that we saw with other smaller organizations and non-profits. As we did with the Downtown Business District (DBD) to repurpose funds to Public Works, the funds for the Main Street façade program. This group (Connecticut Home Collective) is partnering with the Economic Development Office (ECD Department) to have EDC run point and they will be a contractor to carry out the program. Councilman Nocera states that, at our last caucus, our EDC Chair (Councilman Loffredo) expressed a desire to bring that item, before approving tonight, to EDC so they can better understand the rationale behind it, and perhaps have people speak to it at EDC. Attorney Smith replies, “Okay.” Councilman Nocera states that he will defer to the EDC Chair to talk about it. Councilman Vincent Loffredo states he believes that this is something that should be reviewed by the Economic Development Committee. He understands that it is the recommendation by the American Rescue Plan Task Force to repurpose. It is not a mandate. The ARPA Task Force is recommending that it be handled in the manner that the Task Force discussed. There are potentially other ways that this could be handled, but that has not been explored. It has not been reviewed by any Councilmanic committee. Attorney Smith replies, that to the best of his knowledge, and to be fair, no one has looked at any ARPA resolution. For example when we looked at moving the funds from the Downtown Business District to Public Works, we did not have the Public Works Commission look at repurposing. The Committee can do whatever it likes. The Council is the ultimate authority for that, but, as he said, ARPA has been the only committee of jurisdiction to look at any of these. Councilman Loffredo notes that the committee (ARPA) has repurposed some money a few months ago, in terms of an organization repurposes the funds to another organization. Attorney Smith replies that they did this several months ago, but it was Downtown Business District to Public Works; ARPA recommendation to Council; Council voted on it, which he believes was unanimous. That was at large what we are doing here: there is a beneficiary grant to an outside organization. It is going back now to a City department, Councilman Loffredo states that he will defer at this time to his colleague, Councilwoman Jeanette Blackwell, as she did the research on this. He asks that Councilwoman Blackwell put on the record that another outside group, the money was repurposed by an existing outside group. Councilwoman Jeanette Blackwell states that, on another occasion, we were able to reallocate funds from the Middletown Racial Justice Coalition, back in June. Attorney Smith replies, “Yes, adding that was separate.” Councilwoman Blackwell continues, saying that the Middletown Racial Justice Coalition was collaborating with Middletown United Fathers. She asks Attorney Smith to elaborate on this and to why it seemed appropriate in that case. Attorney Smith replies that it was a little different because there were had two 3rd party beneficiaries: Precious Price and Middletown Racial Justice Coalition say we are having difficulty getting over the transactional hurdles. We then had Harold Hart, who is already doing this with Middletown United Fathers. He had it up and running, so he offered to be their sponsor, be their fiduciary, and will partner with them. Attorney Smith continues saying that is what we did there: we repurposed, per ARAP recommendations, and the Council said yes. The DBD thing is more like this: there is a 3rd party beneficiary saying “We need help.” The City department says, “We’ll help you.” It went to Public Works. Councilman Loffredo states that he still believes that it is appropriate for ECD Commission to look at this. The Committee has a lot of work on its agenda, it has a lot of matters that the EDC Committee is dealing with and the staff of that body outstanding matters. It seems that they could explore this being assigned by another party, per the example that has been put on the record. There is nothing inappropriate as it will require Councilmanic action, or a Councilmanic committee, to have the opportunity to more deeply review this matter. Attorney Smith replies that it is the Council’s prerogative to assign it however they would like. It is the Council’s process. Councilman Loffredo replies that EDC will review the matter further and then it may be brought back to the full Council for consideration at its next meeting. Thank you. The Chair calls on Councilwoman Linda Salafia Councilwoman Linda Salafia stated that she has a question about agenda item (inaudible). She asks why this proposed resolution did not go to Finance & Government Operations Committee. F&G; did it go to EDC OCTOBER 2, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 17 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS Attorney Smith replies that this question is something that ECD Director Christine Marques can address; however, she is not here this evening. He suggests that the Mayor’s Chief of Staff Bobby Knoll Peterson can step on deck. Mayor’s Chief of Staff Peterson states that this lease has been in the works for some time. It has to do with one of the cameras that is used by the Parking Department and the Police, This camera has been on this building for some time, installed by a gentleman's agreement under a previous administration. They are looking to formalize this agreement, adding that the City’s Deputy General Counsel, Attorey Forte, has been going back and forth with the property-owner. They have come to an agreement: the owner will allow the camera to be housed on his building for one parking space per month. This resolution and accompanying agreement will formalize that arrangement. Councilwoman Salafia (inaudible) Mayor’s Chief of Staff Peterson replies that this is a new owner since the agreement was in place. Since there was a gentleman’s agreement between the previous owner and a previous administration that a camera could be on this building. That owner passed away and the property changed hands. We are looking to formalize the agreement with the current owner. There was an issue where the camera was pulling power from a tenant, so we made that tenant whole and changed ho the camera is puling power. Instead of a payment, the new owner is willing to trade use of his building – mounting he camera on his building – in exchange for one parking space per month. Councilwoman Salafia asks if that is not considered a financial impact. She asks what the monthly rental cost of a parking space is. Mayor’s Chief of Staff Peterson state that if it were a not-for profit it would be $50/month and, if it were a resident, it would be $75/month. Councilwoman Salafia (inaudible) Mayor’s Chief of Staff Peterson replies that is a fine question and she does not have an answer. She states that they have been working with Attorney Forte. She does not know if, since there is no money being exchanged, they just give them a parking space, a parking pass. She reiterates that she does not know, adding that she was never . . . (inaudible) Councilwoman Salafia (inaudible) . . . dollar amount it should go to F&G that will be her recommendation Mayor’s Chief of Staff Peterson replies that she can answer any more questions about the lease. Councilwoman Salafia (inaudible) Mayor’s Chief of Staff Peterson replies, “No, no,” adding it is there for the Council’s consideration, Councilwoman Salafia (inaudible) Mayor’s Chief of Staff Peterson replies that it is a single parking space, adding that they initially made an offer. The owner came back with another offer, There was a lot of negotiating over this as to what would be fair for this camera and it ultimately came down to one pacing spot. This was decided it was fair for having the camera on this building, adding that this building has a liquor store on Main Street. The camera faces Green Street, so it was decided that it was important to maintain that view. Councilwoman Salafia states that the Council has to approve accepting money, noting that both the Council and Finance & Government have to approve accepting money. In other words, while the Council should approve, Finance & Government must also approve this agreement. The Chair calls on Councilman Eugene Nocera. Councilman Eugene Nocera calls for Attorney Brig Smith. Councilman Nocera states that he was trying to jump in on the issue of repurposing ARPA funds. As Chair of Public Works & Facilities, he recalls that the Commission did discuss repurposing and that money coming to Public Works. He adds that it was unanimously approved. He wants to point out, including that, after going to Finance & Government, the resolution did go to the full Council. Thank you. The Chair calls on Councilman Vincent Loffredo. Councilman Vincent Loffredo states that this was under appropriations. He asks if Police Captain John Lozefski is available. He notes that there are two (2) matters under consideration in appropriations for $192K to cover the negative balance for private duty overtime for FY 23. He asks Captain Lozefski to correct him if he is wrong: at the end of the day, bills have been sent out because we are providing this police coverage to private contractors. They, in turn, are required to have appropriate police coverage while doing work on City streets. In effect, this appropriation, is there any likelihood that we will not be reimbursed for any part of this $192K? OCTOBER 2, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 18 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS Captain Lozefski replies that the contractors are being invoiced monthly and the City is being paid. What happened is that line is only given a certain amount of money? If they exceed that many jobs, then that money goes into the negative. As Finance Director Carl Erlacher may explain, the more money that goes into that, into the negative, the more money the City takes in. Councilman Loffredo states that this is money from last year Captain Lozefski replies, “That is correct.” Councilman Loffredo states that this is October of the FY23-24. He asks if there are folks, who are not paying what they should have paid months ago. Captain Lozefski explains that they don’t pay in 30 days. He believes that Kori (Attorney Wisneski) chases them down. Councilman Loffredo sates that the Police Department does report, at some point, that we will be on the other side, and that we will see that report to the Council that the City has received $192K in revenue to take care of this private duty overtime. Captain Lozefski replies, “Absolutely.” Councilman Loffredo ask Finance Director Carl Erlacher is can confirm. Finance Director Erlacher confirms Councilman Loffredo asks if, this fiscal year, noting that we are only in the 1st Quarter. It is startling to see that there is already an overtime balance of $233K. He asks what is going on, Captain Lozefski replies that this s from last year’s budget. Councilman Loffredo read: funds to cover negative balance for fiscal year 23. There are two figures: one to cover $192K and then $233K. There are two figures. He asks why there are two figures from the same account. Captain Lozefski replies that one is for replacement overtime, for replacement patrol officers on the street for day-to-day activity. They are two completely different things versus the private duty line, which is done off- duty It is overtime money for police officers. Councilman Loffredo states that, again, we will be reimbursed to provide these services during regular business hours. In other words, will the City be reimbursed for this overtime, the $233K for last year? Captain Lozefski replies that the $233K has nothing to do with private duty and will not be reimbursed by anyone. That money will come from the General Fund. Councilman Loffredo states that this is the fact: we expended what was in the budget. He asks how much was included in the City budget for overtime. Captain Lozefski replies that year was $850K. Councilman Loffredo replies that this translates into over $1M in overtime. Captain Lozefski replies, “Yes.” Councilman Loffredo clarifies, noting that is for the fiscal year that just ended. Captain Lozefski replies, “Yes.” Councilman Loffredo remarks that this seems extraordinary that they have over $1M in overtime in one fiscal year. Captain Lozefski concurs, stating, “It is.” Councilman Loffredo continues, noting it is particularly concerning because the Council already provided an increase in the size of the department he asks why is there over $1M in overtime. Captain Lozefski replies that Chief Costa can speak to this question, adding that, on paper, they are budgeted for 120 officers. They do not have 120 officers. There have been retirements, people out on workers comp. They were not at 120 officers to begin with, adding that they actually had 106 officers on paper. Of that 106 officers, we had retirements, we had numerous worker’s comp injuries, administrative people out of work. We have to backfill. There is a minimum amount of manpower that is required. We have to keep a minimum number of offers on ever shift. We also have a contractual agreement that allows the department to so much time off, which binds them contractually and which also digs in to some of the replacement costs. OCTOBER 2, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 19 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS Councilman Loffredo replies that there must be a way to better control this matter. The City, in terms of meeting its responsibilities is a priority for all of us, for public safety. The overtime for last year, noting that Captain Lozefski has been around for quite a while, is above normal. He asks if that is correct, reiterating that they are running over $1M in overtime consistently. Captain Lozefski replies, “Yes,” noting that they have been. Councilman Loffredo ask what an officer gets for vacation time. Captain Lozefski replies that they accurate 13 hours per month in overtime. Councilman Loffredo asks if they get vacation time. Captain Lozefski states that he does not understand the question. Councilman Loffredo asks if officers get a certain amount of vacation time. Captain Lozefski replies, ‘Yes,” noting that officers accumulate 13 hours of vacation time per month. He adds that officers are allowed to accumulate that time; however, it is capped at 200 hours. Anything over that is lost. So officers take vacation time along with personal time. Councilman Loffredo notes that there 120 officers on paper. We have positions that are not filled. He asks if there is money available that we are not yet using to pay for officers hat can be used for overtime. Perhaps Finance Director Erlacher can speak to this. Finance Director Carl Erlacher replies that no department is allowed to transfer funds out of the full-time salary line. As Captain Lozefski said, the full-time salary line had a favorable experience, which covered replacement overtime for officers. Nevertheless, they have to go for an appropriation for that line for the underage in the salary line to the General Fund. It is semantics. As far as private duty, the revenue far exceeded what was in the budget, which is why the expenditure was higher. This is why they have to do an appropriation for that expenditure line and they have the benefit of the extra revenue, which had gone back into the General Fund. That is all that it is. Councilman Loffredo states that his question regarding this overtime, there are internal ways . . . Director Erlacher replies, “Right,” adding that hey saved money in the full-time line because they had only 106 officers. That money came back. Now we have to appropriate some back out to cover the replacement overtime. Councilman Loffredo asks if it is proper to say that the $1M, in effect, gets turned over in the manner just described. Direction Erlacher replies, “Correct.” It was a net positive for the private duty and everything came back to the City. Councilman Loffredo thanks Director Erlacher for this information The Cahir calls on Councilwoman Linda Salafia, followed by Coachwoman Jeanette Blackwell and Councilman Anthony Gennaro. The Chair notes that here are five (5) minutes left in this Questions to Directors session. Councilwoman Linda Salafia states that she has a question for Police Chief Costa regarding agenda item 10D, the HVAC system Police Chief Costa replies that the HVAC system is under LoCIP funding request. Councilwoman Salafia states that in doing her homework, she realized that they just signed – a few years ago – a new contract for the HVAC system. Chief Costa replies that is mechanical. Councilwoman Salafia asks if this is to maintain it. Chief Costa replies, “Yes.” Douglas mechanical is the standardized vendor for this project. The project is actually putting in an HVAC system for the evidence rom. Councilwoman Salafia asks if they will need to redo contract, noting that the 3-years may be up. Chief Costa replies that they are in Year 2 of that contract. They do not have to redo that contract, adding that they are in compliance. Councilwoman Salafia asks if they could have found this before.  OCTOBER 2, 2023 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 20 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS Chief Costa opines that he thinks that this is something that was noticed after the fact. It has been a years- long problem, which needs to be corrected. They are going for accreditation and it will be an issue for the 2025 evaluation because they need climate control in evidence room. The air quality is not to standard for that room and we need it. Councilwoman Salafia asks if it will be enough to fix that system. Chief Costa replies that it will be enough to have Douglas Mechanical fix it. Councilwoman Salafia thanks Chief Costa. The Chair calls on Councilwoman Jeanette Blackwell. Councilwoman Jeanette Blackwell states that she has a question for Police Chief Costa, Captain Lozefski, or Finance Director Erlacher. In looking at the FY24 replacement overtime, it was requested at $750K and private duty was $1M. Since this is the 1st Quarter, have we tapped into those funds yet? Chief Costa replies, “Yes, we have,” adding that they are just closing out the FY 23 books with this appropriation that they have requested. That budget is active and is what we are operating on currently. As they move forward, they will project where they will be at the end of this fiscal year, in July. Councilwoman Blackwell remarks that this is tricky. She notes that they are wrapping up FY 23 and tapping into FY 24 dollars as well Chief Costa replies, Right,” adding that the ones they are here for tonight they are working to close, which is why they are here. The Chair states that it is now 6:59 PM and there are no further questions. 3. Questions to Directors Workshop Closes There being no further available time, Questions to Directors closes at 6:59 PM. 4. Meeting adjourned There being no further questions, Councilman Philip Pessina moves to adjourn. Councilman Anthony Mangiafico seconds the motion. There being no discussion, the Chair calls for a voice vote. The motion to adjourn is unanimously approved by a vote of 12 to 0 (AYES: Councilmembers Blackwell, Carta, Faulkner, Ford, Gennaro, Loffredo, Mangiafico, Marino, McKeon, Nocera, Pessina, and Salafia.). The matter is approved. The meeting is adjourned at 6:59 PM. ATTEST: LINDA S.K. REED, COMMON COUNCIL CLERK K: review/minutes/ 2023 Oct 02 – Ques to Directors – 2 Oct 2023