General Counsel Commission

MINUTES GENERAL COUNSEL COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 27, 2025 Present: Council Member Blackwell, Council Member Nocera, Council Member Salafia, Council Member Sweeney, and Council Member Pulino. Staff: Deputy General Counsel Kori Wisneski, HR Director Justin Richardson Public: Ed McKeon, Cathy Lechowicz 1. Call to Order: Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Public Comment: Ed McKeon, a community advocate, voiced his strong support for the proposed ordinance to provide municipal identification cards to undocumented residents. McKeon, who has been working closely with the community organization MIETA, emphasized the essential role identification plays in daily life, especially for those without legal status. He noted that many undocumented individuals are lawfully present in the U.S. while awaiting hearings yet remain vulnerable due to a lack of government-issued ID. He highlighted that identification is necessary to open bank accounts, obtain housing, enroll children in school, and access healthcare. He also expressed concern over the increasing threat of ICE raids, citing the anxiety and fear such actions instill in immigrant communities. According to McKeon, municipal ID programs already in place in cities like Hartford and New Haven have successfully improved the lives of undocumented residents. He stressed that the program poses little to no harm but has the potential to provide benefit. Cathy Lechowicz, Director of Community Services, addressed the issue of term limits for members appointed to fill unexpired terms on city commissions and boards. Lechowicz illustrated the issue with a specific example of a commissioner whose appointment was delayed and whose initial term lasted only three months—yet was counted as a full three-year term under the current interpretation of the city charter. She explained that this outcome is not aligned with the charter revision, which aimed to broaden civic participation rather than unintentionally penalize new volunteers. Director Lechowicz proposed a solution, which includes the implementation of a “term zero” classification for appointees completing partial terms. It would allow them to serve up to three full terms. She noted that this change could be applied retroactively through simple data reporting, and emphasized the negative impact that such misinterpretations have had on maintaining quorum and encouraging community involvement.  3. Approval of Minutes Council Member Sweeney made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 31, 2025 meeting and Council Member Blackwell seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, with all the members present voting. 4. New Business A. Ordinance – Establishment, Appointments to Unexpired Portions of Terms on Boards, Committees and Commissions, and Retroactivity of Application (14-31) Council Member Steven Kovach introduced the ordinance. Under the current interpretation of the charter, any appointment whether for a full term or to complete an unexpired term, counts as one of the three allowed terms for an individual regardless of how long the appointee actually serves. This has resulted in situations where individuals are penalized for filling short-term vacancies, losing the opportunity to serve a full term later. Council Member Kovach emphasized the unintended consequences of this interpretation, stating that it discourages civic engagement and makes it harder to find willing volunteers to serve on city commissions. He offered specific examples from the LGBTQIA+ Commission, which he chairs, where multiple commissioners were impacted. In several cases, members were only able to serve for a matter of weeks or months, yet those brief appointments were counted as full terms. These terms, if counted toward the three-term limit, unfairly limit the opportunity for committed individuals to serve meaningfully. The ordinance seeks to clarify that appointments to unexpired terms should not count toward the three-term limit. It reflects the original intent of the charter revision— to impose term limits while still promoting public service and sustained civic participation. Kovach further noted that both the LGBTQIA+ Commission and the Community Services Commission had experienced difficulties retaining engaged members due to the rigid interpretation of term limits. Director Cathy Lechowicz, who spoke in support of the ordinance during public comment, also recommended a retroactive approach that would reclassify previously served partial terms as “term zero.” She explained that it would not be administratively difficult to implement this change using existing systems and reports. This solution, she argued, would ensure fairness and would not penalize individuals who stepped in to fill temporary vacancies. Council Member Gene Nocera expressed strong support for the ordinance, echoing the concern that the current interpretation discourages both new and continuing participation. He called the proposed change a fair and reasonable adjustment. Council Member Jeanette Blackwell agreed, affirming that the issue had been raised previously in another one of her commissions and that the change was long 2 overdue. She acknowledged Director Lechowicz’s leadership on the issue and stated her full support for the ordinance. Council Member Nocera made a motion to approve the ordinance and Council Member Sweeney seconded the motion. The vote passed unanimously, and the ordinance was approved to be forwarded to the full council for consideration at the next meeting. B. Ordinance – Permit Fees; separate permits required (120-3) Bobbye Knoll Peterson introduced the ordinance by explaining that the city’s building permit fees had not been updated in over a decade, which had resulted in Middletown significantly lagging behind neighboring municipalities in terms of fee competitiveness and revenue generation. She emphasized that the proposed increases were moderate and would still leave Middletown’s fees below the regional average, even after the adjustments. Under the proposed ordinance, the fee for the first $1,000 in standard building costs would increase from $15.26 to $28.26. For costs above $1,000, the fee would rise from $14.26 per additional $1,000 to $15.26. Additionally, a new fee of $75 would be introduced for a third inspection in cases where a project has already failed two prior inspections. Peterson also noted that while the original proposal included increases to fees for new home construction, specifically raising fees for habitable space from $75 to $125 and for non-habitable space from $25 to $50, those items were not reflected in the final ordinance language. She clarified that although these additional fee changes had been proposed, they had not formally passed through the Public Works Commission or the Finance and Government Operations (F&G) Committee, and thus she recommended proceeding only with the changes explicitly stated in the ordinance. She suggested that the omitted changes be revisited later once proper committee review was completed. Council Member Gene Nocera, who serves on the Public Works Commission, voiced his full support for the ordinance and underscored the importance of the changes. He emphasized that while the city values its partnerships with local institutions, it is also essential that all parties pay their fair share, particularly when using city services and resources. Council Member Jeanette Blackwell raised a procedural question regarding the ordinance’s route through committees. She pointed out that the F&G Committee had approved this ordinance before being presented to the General Council Commission (GCC), rather than the other way around. Peterson acknowledged this deviation, explaining that it occurred due to scheduling conflicts and the compressed budget calendar. GCC did not meet in April, the F&G Committee reviewed the ordinance in 3 May to avoid further delay. Peterson stressed the importance of aligning the changes with the beginning of the new fiscal year. Council Member Blackwell also requested clarification on how the city has proposed fees compared to those of other municipalities. Peterson responded that in researching peer cities, Middletown was consistently below the average. She reiterated that the city's strategy was to implement incremental increases rather than a steep adjustment, with the understanding that another fee review should occur in the next two years. Council Member Nocera made a motion to approve the ordinance and Council Member Sweeney seconded the motion. Councilwoman Linda Salafia, who joined the meeting late, abstained from the vote due to uncertainty about the item being discussed at the time. The motion passed with three votes in favor (Blackwell, Sweeney, and Nocera) and one abstention (Salafia) and will be forwarded to the full council for final approval at its next meeting. Councilman John Pulino was noted as present on the call but unable to participate fully due to technical difficulties. His vote was not recorded. C. Ordinance – Real Estate Assessment Fixing Agreement for Tall Properties LLC for Industrial Park Road (272-9.13) Director Christine Marques introduced the agreement. She explained that Tall Properties, LLC intends to construct a state-of-the-art pickleball facility that will include eight to ten courts, a competitive arena, and on-site food service. The facility is designed not only to serve as a recreational hub but also as a potential venue for competitive play and regional events, drawing visitors to Middletown. The minimum investment by the developer is projected at $11.4 million, which is a required threshold for participation in the city’s tax fixing program. Director Marques explained that the proposed agreement is structured as a six-year graduated tax abatement, in which the developer would receive partial deferral of increased assessments tied to property improvements. The deferral schedule is as follows:  Year 1 and Year 2: 0% of the deferred assessment added to the base assessment.  Year 3: 20% of the deferred assessment added.  Year 4: 40% added.  Year 5: 60% added.  Year 6: 80% added. Director Marques noted that the land is currently a vacant, undeveloped parcel with a base assessment of $425,250. It is located between 306 and 362 Industrial Park Road. 4  During discussion, it was clarified that while the project is under review by the General Council Commission, the Economic Development Commission (EDC) or the Finance & Government Operations (F&G) Committee has not yet reviewed it. Director Marques explained that the EDC meeting originally scheduled for May 13, 2025, was canceled due to a scheduling conflict with budget hearings. The tax agreement had been scheduled for that meeting, and as a result, had not yet received formal EDC input. She indicated that the matter would be on the agenda for the EDC’s June meeting and would be presented to F&G for further review before being added to the council agenda. Council Member Blackwell and Attorney Kori Wisneski acknowledged the procedural oversight and confirmed that the item would be removed from the June Common Council agenda and instead be scheduled for action in July, pending required committee approvals. Despite the delay in the formal process, members of the commission were largely supportive of the proposal’s intent, recognizing the economic and recreational value such a facility could bring to the community. Council Member Nocera made a motion to approve the ordinance and Council Member Sweeney seconded the motion. The vote was called and passed with four votes in the affirmative. Councilman John Pulino was noted as present on the call but unable to participate fully due to technical difficulties. His vote was not recorded. D. Job Description – Alarms Technician Human Resources Director Justin Richardson introduced the item, explaining that the current job description had not been updated in more than 20 years, and a revision was long overdue. He noted that the position would soon become vacant due to an impending retirement, making this an appropriate time to modernize the description and align it with the actual duties and technological expectations of the role. Richardson emphasized that the update was the result of collaboration between the Human Resources Department and the Fire Department. In particular, Fire Chief David Albert had played an active role in reviewing and recommending updates to reflect current operational needs. Chief Albert addressed the commission and confirmed that the role had evolved significantly since the last revision. He pointed out that some of the duties listed in the old description were outdated or no longer relevant, while many of the responsibilities now routinely performed by the technician had not been included in the original version. Chief Albert noted that this position, while often overlooked due to its stability and longevity, plays a critical behind-the-scenes role in ensuring public safety. He further explained that the revision also included updates to terminology, processes, and interdepartmental communication responsibilities to better reflect the integrated nature of current emergency response operations. 5  Council Member Blackwell asked whether there would be any salary changes associated with the revised job description. Director Richardson clarified that there would be no change in compensation. The position is part of a bargaining unit and is governed by a collective bargaining agreement, so its salary structure is set by contract rather than through the city’s Maximus compensation plan. This update was strictly related to job duties, expectations, and terminology, not pay or classification. Council Member Nocera made a motion to approve the job description and Council Member Sweeney seconded the motion. The motion passed with four votes in the affirmative. Councilman John Pulino was still experiencing technical issues and was unable to participate in the vote. With no objections or further discussion, the job description update was approved to move forward for final administrative action. E. Discussion of Municipal ID Card Program The commission concluded its meeting with a discussion on a Municipal Identification (ID) Card Program, a topic placed on the agenda at the request of Mayor Florsheim. Council Member Jeanette Blackwell introduced the item and welcomed Reverend Deborah Hopkins, a community leader and advocate who has been actively collaborating with the mayor on the development of the program. Council Member Blackwell noted that commissioners had been provided with reference materials, including sample ordinances from the cities of Hartford and New Haven, as well as a PowerPoint presentation outlining the concept and framework of a municipal ID program. Reverend Hopkins began by thanking the mayor and the General Counsel Commission for continuing the conversation about how to protect and support the most vulnerable residents of Middletown. She explained that her motivation for pursuing the municipal ID program was rooted in increasing concern over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity in and around the region. She described recent instances of people being detained without warning. These situations have created an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty among undocumented individuals and immigrant families, many of whom are legally present and awaiting hearings but lack official identification. Reverend Hopkins stressed that the implementation of a city-issued ID would help such individuals more confidently navigate everyday tasks, including securing housing, opening bank accounts, accessing healthcare, and enrolling children in school. She also emphasized that even beyond undocumented individuals, there are residents—such as the homeless, seniors, or those with disabilities—who lack access to traditional forms of ID and would benefit from a secure, government-issued municipal identification card. Reverend Hopkins explained that the proposed Middletown program would closely follow the models successfully used in Hartford and New Haven, where such programs have been in place for years and have improved community trust and access to services without compromising public safety. Council Member Sweeney inquired about the rate of adoption of the ID card programs in Hartford and New Haven, asking how many individuals had taken 6 advantage of the programs and whether those individuals otherwise lacked access to valid identification. Reverend Hopkins acknowledged that she did not have those specific statistics at hand but offered to research the data and follow up. Council Member Gene Nocera raised the question of whether the municipal ID card could serve as one of the valid documents required to obtain a REAL ID or to help with situations like driver’s license renewal when individuals must provide proof of identity and residency. Reverend Hopkins responded that the municipal ID would demonstrate residency and would be a supplemental form of identification, though likely not sufficient on its own to replace state-issued documents. Council Member Blackwell clarified that municipal IDs can help support proof of address but would not necessarily fulfill all Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) requirements, such as for REAL ID issuance. Council Member Linda Salafia asked several questions regarding the validity and documentation standards for the proposed ID. She expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of a municipal ID card, particularly if it was based solely on an individual presenting a piece of mail or a utility bill as proof of residency. Salafia also questioned the broader justification for implementing the program, beyond the threat of ICE activity, and raised concerns about how the city would verify identities and protect against fraud. Reverend Hopkins addressed those concerns by reiterating that the intent behind the ID card is not to replace federally or state-issued IDs, but to offer a basic form of local recognition and support. She emphasized that undocumented individuals are often reluctant to interact with institutions due to fear of detainment or deportation, and having a recognized city-issued ID would offer some level of reassurance and access. She also explained that a significant part of the program’s purpose is education and empowerment—ensuring residents know their rights and feel supported by the city, particularly in places like schools, houses of worship, shelters, and health centers. Hopkins shared that she belongs to a diverse church community with members from Ghana, Nigeria, and Pakistan, and expressed deep concern over the chilling effects of immigration enforcement on immigrant families in Middletown. Council Member Blackwell thanked Reverend Hopkins for her presentation and the urgency she brought to the discussion. She expressed support for continued dialogue and emphasized that this discussion was only a preliminary step. She encouraged the commission to review the reference materials provided, including ordinances and administrative procedures from other municipalities, and indicated that further conversations, would be necessary before any formal action could be taken. 5. Old Business A. Recruitment Efforts 7  Director Justin Richardson presented an update highlighting the community outreach done by Maria Scarlett. She has been actively engaging with organizations such as the Connecticut State College’s DEI office, Better Business Bureaus, OLA, and wellness fairs to promote city workforce opportunities. Her networking has already helped connect a city public works employee exploring a shift into IT with Middlesex Community College’s IT program. These outreach efforts are positioning the city well in building relationships that could yield stronger, more diverse applicant pipelines. Commissioners were also interested in tracking the impact of these recruitment efforts. Director Richardson confirmed they're collecting data on how applicants hear about the city’s jobs and plan to use it for future reporting. B. Baker Tilly Updates The Human Resources Department is approaching a key milestone in its ongoing job classification project. Unions were given a deadline of May 31st to submit feedback on the revised job descriptions. As of now, Local 466 and UPSEU have responded. However, if the remaining unions do not submit their feedback by the deadline, HR will move forward without their input. While this approach will allow the project to stay on track, it may create additional challenges in future meetings where consensus or clarification might be needed. The next steps in the process include holding small meetings between HR staff, department heads, and union representatives to ensure alignment and mutual agreement on the proposed job descriptions. Once those meetings are complete, the project will enter its next phase, where Baker Tilly will apply its metrics to finalize the classification structure. Director Justin Richardson aims to present the finalized results to the Common Council by September, which will mark approximately two years since the project began. C. Vacancy Report The City has made significant progress in reducing the number of open positions across departments. Several key hires are already in the final stages, including the Insurance Benefits Coordinator, an Administrative Secretary in the Police Department, as well as roles in custodial services and dispatch. However, some positions, such as the Grant Writer and Chief Tax Clerk, have been delayed due to the Fiscal Year 2025 budget cycle and are expected to resume recruitment efforts in July. The Human Resources Department is also addressing new police officer vacancies caused by recent retirements, with efforts underway to fill those positions 8 promptly. Additionally, Utility Worker and Truck Driver roles are moving through the requisition process, with eligibility lists either ready or in development. A special case was noted involving the recruitment for Director and Deputy Director roles in Public Works. One candidate who applied for the director position failed to attend their scheduled interview, which staff found disappointing given the importance of the role. During the discussion, Commissioner Kelly Sweeney asked whether the city is tracking hiring outcomes in connection with its recruitment efforts. Director Justin Richardson confirmed that application responses are being monitored and analyzed to assess outreach and interest levels across job postings. 6. Adjournment Council Member Nocera made a motion to adjourn and Council Member Salafia seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting adjourned. 9