Common Council

COMMON COUNCIL MIDDLETOWN CONNECTICUT SPECIAL MEETING QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2024 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Common Council of the City of Middletown, Questions to Directors Workshop, was held on Monday, December 2, 2024, 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 live streamed on Facebook and the City webpage and was broadcast on local cable access television. Present: Councilwoman Jeanette Blackwell Councilman Anthony Mangiafico Councilman Grady Faulkner, Jr. Councilman Eugene Nocera, President Councilman Darnell Ford Councilman Jonathan Pulino Councilman Anthony Gennaro, Sr. Councilwoman Linda Salafia Councilman Steven Kovach Councilwoman Leslie Spatola Councilman Vincent Loffredo Councilwoman Kelly Sweeney Also Present: Sergeant-at-Arms: Middletown Police Officer Kurt Scrivo Linda Reed, Clerk of the Common Council City Staff: Arts & Culture – Kisha Michael, Coordinator Central Communication – Wayne Bartolotta, Director Economic & Community Development – Christine Marques, Director Equal Opportunity & Diversity Management – Faith Jackson, Director Finance & Revenue Services – Carl Erlacher, CPA, Director Fire – David Albert, Chief General Counsel -- Brig Smith, Esq. Library – Ramona Burkey, Director Police -- Erik Costa, Chief Public Works – Howard Weissberg, Acting Director Recreation – Cathy Lechowicz, Director Technology Services – Brianna Skowera, Director Water & Sewer – Joseph Fazzino, Director Absent: Ho. Benjamin Florsheim, Mayor Assessor -- Damon Braasch, CCMA II City & Town Clerk – Ashley Flynn-Natale Human Resources Division – Justin Richardson, Division Director Land Use -- Marek Kozikowski, AICP, Director Youth Services – Justin Carbonella, Manager Public: Chamber: approximately 15 WebEx: 8 Facebook: unknown 1. Call to Order Councilman Eugene Nocera is designated as Chair for this meeting. The Chair calls the meeting to order at 6:00 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.  DECEMBER 2, 2024 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 2 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS 2. Questions to Directors Workshop Opens The Chair opens the Questions to Directors Workshop session at 6:05 PM. Councilman Vincent Loffredo: I have questions for the Fire Chief, please. Good evening. Fire Chief David Albert: Good evening; Councilman Loffredo: On the agenda this evening, as you know, is the proposed purchase of land on Newfield Street. Looking back at the fact that the City did acquire use of the former military site -- the Nike site – on Mile Lane, looking back at that purchase, it was designated for potentially a firehouse to be built on that property as well as a training center and a few other items Most recently, I don’t believe there has been a new site design for that property laid out, so at this point, we are not proposing to use that site as a fire station. Chief Albert: Correct, and we had a good conversation about it at EDC (Economic & Community Development Commission) and with Public Safety (Commission). That site is just not conducive to what we are trying to do. Back in 2008-2009 when the Nike site was a possibility, it was working in conjunction that the State Fire School was going to go there so we were going to get a station out of them. That’s why they were looking at it. That is no longer the case. The State school is no longer in Middletown, They are no longer in Middletown so there would be no partnership with them. We also have to think about that, in 18 years, the landscape on that are has drastically changed. There is Talia Trail. They are all of the new development. I’m sure the last thing they want is a fire station in their backyard. That’s where t would basically be. And then the contaminants that were possibly at Mile Lane 18 years ago that were probably not that a big a deal. With history and science, we now know it’s a pretty big deal today. We cannot -- I cannot talk too much about the contaminates – say how much or how bad. I think Christine (Economic & Community Development Director Marques) may have a little bit more history on that. Councilman Loffredo: So we have had the site for some time. There is over 22 acres of land there. Based on the referendum and discussion on the 911 Center, and with the 911 Center on that property. Fire Chief Albert: Correct Councilman Loffredo: It was originally designed and so forth. Has the City, in terms of, I’m not aware it has been done, any update regarding the contaminants that are there. We do have an emergency center the, the plot that we use for training and the like. Right now we own property. At the same time, we are asking to pay for an additional 1.2 acres of land over $500K approximately plus demolition costs and so forth. Folks are asking and I guess we need a better -- a stronger -- explanation why it has been decided. What are we going to do with the 22 acres? Can it be used for other activities? As I looked over the received information, it seemed that we are locked into a certain type of usage: clearly, your firehouse or some other emergency response center of some nature would be appropriate for the site. The site is appropriate for a fire station. We're still deciding that we're going to put a fire station on Newfield Street directly. Fire Chief Albert: Do we think maybe something can go there? Possibly, but we also have to think about the overall grand scheme and logistics of things. That property is on Newfield Street and Mile Lane is 0.9 of a mile off Newfield Street. We don't cover anything to the left besides one structure almost closer to the East Street and Ridgewood Road. It's not a benefit for us to be all the way up that access road, all the way in the back, then have to still make our way right, go 0.9 mile through a residential neighborhood where their school during the day, in the afternoon with traffic to get back onto Newfield Street. Also, where we would have to build would be way in the back, so we'd be set back further. We'd have to wait for the gate to open, come down the access road, and then 0.9 mile just to get Newfield Street. That right there could be two (2) minutes to your response time. You know . . . Councilman Loffredo: We understand. You're saying the idea of putting a fire station in the first place, because the location and the distance between Point A and point B has not changed. This is between the Mile Lane site, which we own -- the 22+ acres -- and where it's located and coming out and coming onto that. You're indicating then that the idea of putting a fire station there really never didn't make much sense. Fire Chief Albert: No, no. I think back 17 . . . 16 years ago, when it was pitched to us where we possibly could have a station out of having a school there, I think at that point it's like, well, we've needed a station since the eighties. If this can make it happen, we might do that. But if you notice, once the money from the State school went away, the project never came to fruition. We had past retired Chief Kronenberger at Public Safety (Commission) just a few weeks ago, and he actually spoke to the committee on how he pivoted away from that property to be a fire station many years ago, knowing that it just is not conducive for our response times. I have to think about where Newfield Street is, where that property that we want to buy where we can go left, we can go right, or we can go straight. We're on the main road. We don't have three (3) or four (4) minutes to get to the main vessel of travel. We're right there and we can easily pivot either way for our response times. Councilman Loffredo: There are three (3) fire districts in the City. The Central Fire District has two (2) fire houses. Now we would have three (3). Chief Albert: Correct. Councilman Loffredo: The other districts only have one (1) firehouse.  DECEMBER 2, 2024 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 3 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS Chief Albert: Correct, but we are also double size. So a lot of you know -- especially the Public Safety knows - - this isn't just about getting a fire station for our response times and to better align ourselves to meet NFPA standards. We also have a massive space issue within our department. I have 24 staff members Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM, jammed into two (2) small buildings with very small square footage. After-night hours, we have about 15 to 12 people that are there at 24/7. We are crammed in. We have things sitting outside. We don't have storage. We have water issues. We have a leaky roof. Our buildings are in drastic need of repair and sprucing up into this century. So it goes more than just the response time issues and making sure that we can cover that section of town to meet NFPA standards and to make sure that we provide a high level of service to everyone in that total road area, but it's also for feasibility and infrastructure for my people. About a year ago we did a department wide survey and asked everybody: What is (sic) our deficiencies? What is the number one thing you wish you can change here? Pretty much from everyone the answer was “space.” That was pretty much from every single member, from every single rank, every single division. Councilman Loffredo: As you know, the three (3) fire districts are three (3) different taxing districts. Chief Davis: Correct. Councilman Loffredo: Any possibility, since the location of this is going to be out in in that area, of doing a combined station with Westfield. Chief Albert: So I did. That question did come up I don't know if it was in EDC (Economic Development Commission) or not. Let's just say, what if we became one fire department one day? From Main Street to East street -- it maybe only 3 ½ miles, but you have to look at ease of travel and how fast we can get an engine to that side of town. Even if we did consolidate, or take over and become one big department, you still need to station on Newfield Street. Councilman Loffredo: I understand. I will make my question clearer: Any possibility of both districts combining to develop the fire station out of the Newfield area shared within the two (2) districts? Has that discussion occurred? Chief Albert: No, and I don't think that can happen because it's in our district, so they wouldn't be able to come into our district to do anything or . . . Would we respond to them with mutual aid? Yes, we would help them when aid if they, if they call it and vice versa, like we currently do have now. Councilman Loffredo: So you're saying that having such an arrangement is it . . . in the Charter, it talks about, the Charter mentions, at some point in it, regarding providing fire services being part of the overall City responsibility: the fact that that we would then take on the responsibility -- “we” meaning those folks living in the Central Fire District -- being responsible based on the current set of circumstances. The operation and the costs of the personnel and operation of a 3rd station would be totally borne by just those taxpayers, correct? Chief Albert: That would be a question for Finance, and that's a good question. I don't know. Well, anything, salaries, anything like that, “yes,” that's borne by anyone in the Fire District. The building aspect, I don't know. Yeah, we're a tax district, but I don't know if we have the bond the building, if the City share comes out of the General Fund. That I don't know. I'm not a finance guy, but I will say we are looking to seek State and Federal funding, so we're hoping that this comes with a very minimal cost to the taxpayers. Councilman Loffredo: My last question is: who is involved in setting, how do how do we come about, or how did the City arrive at the agreement, or the potential agreement, with the owners of that property for the purchase price and the like? Chief Albert: That was done through legal counsel Christopher Forte, the City attorney, who I think handles all the real estate for the City. He's the one, I got the contact information for the property for the realtor. He's been the point of contact, going back and forth with the realtor. Councilman Loffredo: So, do you know what the assessed value is? Is Chris Forte on the call? Chief Albert: That I don't know. He can answer that question. Councilman Loffredo: Can somebody from the . . . So the property, I assume, was for sale. Chief Albert: Yes, it was. It's been for sale for several years now. Councilman Loffredo: Okay. And what were they asking? Chief Albert: At one point, it was listed for over $1M or right around there. Then it went to $850K, then $650K, and then we made the agreement for $499K Councilman Loffredo: Thank you. Chief Albert: No problem. Chair/Councilman Nocera: Do any other Council members have questions for Chief Albert? Okay, thank you, Chief. Are there other council members that have questions for other directors? Councilwoman Blackwell.  DECEMBER 2, 2024 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 4 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS Councilwoman Jeanette Blackwell: Thank you. Attorney Smith, could he come up. Good evening, Attorney Smith, and thank you for providing a document literally “hot off the press.” I think you're able to share. You have some additional copies that you can disseminate to my colleagues. So I wanted to know, because we had three items -- Resolutions D, E, and F -- related to the ARPA unencumbered dollars. I wanted to know the exact dollar amount that we currently have. If you could just step us all through the current dollar amount and then I'll pose my questions. Attorney Brig Smith: For sure. And just to say, I think that you had earlier, document approximating this spreadsheet saying here are the 18 or so City projects that we have and here's what's left. And you may recall that we had to have sort of an update here as we're having right now because we didn't know for sure the exact amount that we would have left over. So we told departments they've got to get their stuff in finalized by Wednesday of last week before Thanksgiving. Purchase orders then had to have been in process so we knew exactly how much money was actually going to be obligated. We did that because we wanted to make sure that Council had a chance to review it, reallocate it as need be, and then give the departments a chance to get things executed -- obligated -- by the end of the year. If the money's not obligated by the end of the year, then it risks going back to Treasury. What you have right now in front of you is a spreadsheet that says here are the 18 City projects that we've been tracking, in the far right hand column, you see the balance of funds that are remaining for each of those projects. The final row that says Previous Unallocated ARPA funds: $178K. What that is, is the money that had been set aside and not used by the Task Force in the thought that it might be contingencies, there might be unexpected expenses. The Task Force had sort of kept that aside and never recommended it being spent in our recommend forwarded to the Council. So, all told, there's $669,096.17 of unobligated funds. That means that, if we don't use it, we lose it. So before you tonight, you have the resolution that we propose $550K for the fire station we just talked about, and another resolution that talks about taking any remaining unobligated funds and using them for Water & in Sewer projects. So that is what this is, and, as you said it is quite literally “hot off the press.” Councilwoman Blackwell: Yes, so, the, the dollar amount remaining -- just did the math – is $120,069. So that is the amount from the purchase that, if we vote in the affirmative this evening, would go to the Water & Sewer Department. Attorney Smith: That's sounds right. I I went to law school, not math school so I trust your calculations. Councilwoman Blackwell Calculated. I just did the math. I was curious about it because there is no dollar amount in the resolution for Water & Sewer. Attorney Smith: Correct. Councilwoman Blackwell: I just thought it would be helpful to know what we're actually talking about here. So the purchase of the fire station on Newfield Street is Resolution 10D. Attorney Smith: Yep. Councilwoman Blackwell: There's another resolution -- 10F -- that also speaks to the demolition. So we know - - and I guess I probably could have asked the Chief this question as well -- it's $499K for the purchase and then the demolition is roughly $50K. Attorney Smith: Correct.  DECEMBER 2, 2024 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 5 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS Councilwoman Blackwell: Okay. Maybe I should ask the Chief this question while you're at the podium. If the chief could also come up, please. And while the Chief is coming up . . . that's $120K that we're trying to now allocate over to Water & Sewer. Attorney Smith: If you decide to allocate. Councilwoman Blackwell: Correct. It would go over to Water & Sewer. Attorney Smith: Yes Councilwoman Blackwell: Good evening, Chief. So the $50K – and you may have answered this question so I apologize if you did during the questions that Councilman Loffredo posed -- the $50K for the demolition cost, how did we come up with that amount? Fire Chief Albert: We went out and we got three (3) bids. I did contact three (3) companies, who are all on the State bid list to go out and do that, and we did get three (3) bids. The $50K would be sufficient enough to be able to demo that building. I think the one -- the award winning bid -- would be about $47K. Councilwoman Blackwell: $47K. Do you recall the time frame you did those bids? Fire Chief Albert: I reached out to them before the holidays and just told them that I would like an answer or a final price by today. So I got the 3rd bid finally today. So, obviously, if you approve everything tonight, I'll go right to Purchasing tomorrow because I know time is of the essence. We have to get everything in play, but at least the money will be encumbered. But I did go through the bid process, get three (3) proposals, that way we don't have to do a formal, open process, which would take even longer. Councilwoman Blackwell: Okay, thank you. I think my questions have been answered. Thank you. Chair/ Councilman Nocera: Councilman Loffredo. Councilman Vincent Loffredo: Good evening. So there's another document that's been submitted to us as well. This one with a couple of colored documents. Attorney Smith: Correct. Councilman Loffredo: As just as an explanation because the original document turned to the City projects unallocated is the $669,096.17. And, of course this indicates balance of funds remaining, but that's not unallocated. Do we know what that is? Is there what the total unallocated? Attorney Smith: Yeah, I could and I'm sorry if I was unclear. The document that you have: it's sort of a colored spreadsheet, was as of this morning. It was just my best effort to put together as like a quick snapshot of the projects that are still out there – we were getting from Finance and Purchasing -- the obligated funds as they're coming in: what are the purchase orders that actually being entered? So, the morning document -- the document  DECEMBER 2, 2024 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 6 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS has color on it -- has a larger balance of unobligated funds than the current one because we've now processed those POs. So the correct value, as of right now and for the Council to consider, is $669,096.17. Councilman Loffredo: So as far as the non-City projects there, all of that has been properly encumbered. Attorney Smith: Yes. Councilman Loffredo: So it's only on the City side that we have situations where we have non-encumbered. Attorney Smith: Correct. Councilman Loffredo: So if I understand correctly, all of the proposed projects that were approved months ago are all in line, financially, and all the rest at this point. Attorney Smith: Yes. “Use it or lose it,” Departments are told, and so they were got purchase orders in process. The portions that weren't processed are those that remain here the unobligated funds. Councilman Loffredo: I'm just wondering on the groups, the others not the City side. Attorney Smith: The subrecipients. Councilman Loffredo: They have all complied? Attorney Smith: Yes, I believe they have. I don't know if there's some . . . Yeah I believe they have if there's any like leftover it'd be de minimus. Councilman Loffredo: And that's the kind of thing that would either come back to the city or anything leftover from any of the other good is that money that potentially the city could reallocate? Attorney Smith: Could have been, but as I said, if there's anything it is de minimus. Councilman Loffredo: Okay. Thank you. Councilman Eugene Nocera: I serve on both committees and I was at the meeting when we unanimously approved the issues before us tonight. My understanding from the meeting, though, is that there may be some grantees and they are going to fall short and that, with the POs that are necessary to be completed by. Attorney Smith: Just to be clear, so under the Federal guidelines, “obligated” is different than “encumbered.” “Obligated” means there has to be a contract, some agreement, some kind of purchase obligation in place. The City departments have done that. The subrecipients, from my recollection, I think they've largely done that. Councilman Nocera: But there was a little gap that seemed to be between what we are hoping “use it or lose it” that additional money may come its way quickly to the City projects. Attorney Smith: On the subrecipient side. Councilman Nocera: Right. Attorney Smith: Okay, I'll confirm and get back to you. Councilman Nocera: Do you have any estimate what that might be? Attorney Smith: No, as I said, I didn't think it was much of anything, so I'll confirm that. Councilman Nocera: Thank you. Chair/Councilman Eugene Nocera: Are there other questions for directors at this time? I don't see any, so I'm going to close. 3. Questions to Directors Workshop Closes There being no further discussion, the Chair closes Questions to Directors at 6:28 PM. 4. Meeting adjourned Councilman Vincent Loffredo moves to adjourn. Councilwoman Jeanette Blackwell seconds the motion. There being no discussion, the Chair calls for a voice vote. The motion is unanimously approved by a vote of 12-0 (AYE: Councilmembers Blackwell, Faulkner, Ford, Gennaro, Kovach, Loffredo, Mangiafico, Nocera, Pulino, Salafia, Spatola, and Sweeney). The matter is approved. The meeting is adjourned at 6:29 PM.  DECEMBER 2, 2024 COMMON COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING Page 7 QUESTIONS TO DIRECTORS ATTEST: LINDA S.K. REED, COMMON COUNCIL CLERK K: review/ minutes/ 2024 Dec 02 – Ques to Directors – 2 Dec 2024