Legislative Council

3 PRIMROSE STREET NEWTOWN, CT 06470 TEL. (203) 270-4201 FAX (203) 270-4205 www.newtown-ct.gov LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TOWN OF NEWTOWN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL MEETING NEWTOWN MUNICIPAL CENTER, NEWTOWN, CT JANUARY 2, 2019 MINUTES PRESENT: Chris Eide, Chris Smith, Jordana Bloom, Robert Pickard (until 8:28 pm), Judit DeStefano, Ryan Knapp, Dan Wiedemann, Paul Lundquist, Phil Carroll, Kelley Johnson, Jay Mattegat, Dan Honan. ALSO PRESENT: First Selectman Dan Rosenthal, Finance Director Bob Tait, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Lorrie Rodrigue, Board of Education Chair Michelle Ku, Director of Facilities Gino Faiella, Parks and Rec. Commission Ed Marks, 1 press. CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Lundquist called the meeting to order with the Pledge of Allegiance at 7:30 pm. VOTER COMMENT: Ed Marks, Sweet Meadow Road, Newtown – Mr. Marks shared an article from the Newtown Bee regarding pickleball. (ATTACHED) Mr. Marks is advocating for the pickleball project to be in the first year CIP rather than 3rd year, advantages to bond earlier rather than later, a grant of $25,000 has been offered to help support costs. Mr. Marks said pickleball is gaining popularity in the senior community as well as all age groups and there are not enough pickleball courts in Town to support the need, additional courts are needed. MINUTES: MR. HONAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 19, 2018 REGULAR MEETING. SECOND BY MR. CARROLL. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSES. (12-0) COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Lundquist shared communications received. (ATTACHED) COMMITTEE REPORTS: Mr. Lundquist asked for any committee reports, no updates, meetings will be scheduled. FIRST SELECTMAN’S REPORT: Mr. Rosenthal said the Board of Selectmen have not met since the last Legislative Council meeting, Mr. Tait and Mr. Rosenthal have been working on the budget and will have more at the next meeting. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 2019-2020 to 2023-2024 CIP Mr. Lundquist acknowledged the members present from the Board of Ed and Parks and Rec and asked for questions. Mr. Wiedemann asked for estimates from the Board of Ed. Mr. Faiella said no estimates yet. Mr. Wiedemann expressed concern over making a decision on the CIP without estimates. Ms. Ku said Mr. Faiella has done a lot of work on the estimates so far, along with Mr. Bienkowski, to bring forth a number to propose in the CIP. Mr. Lundquist asked when the $5 million number was estimated. Mr. Faiella said the original package was estimated in 2012, phase I completed in 2013, all A/C kept getting pushed back. The number was born out of a package and separation by Kaestle Boos architects. Mr. Faiella has tasked engineers to look at the work in 3 different ways a/c, mechanical ventilation system, and zoned mechanical system. Mr. Carroll understands costs looked at in 2012 and that there has been changes / improvements in technology and perhaps come out to be less in cost and is concerned about risk of putting in a higher number than needed and spending the full amount down. Mr. Faiella said that is not the intention and trusting that taxpayer dollars  LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL will be not be used unnecessarily, they are looking at ductless split technology and improved technology, going back to the engineer to refine work. Mr. Smith asked about timing of the CIP and when estimates will be available, Mr. Tait said there is another year and Mr. Faiella said he should be able to present estimates in the next few weeks. Mr. Lundquist said that if there are better numbers 3 weeks from now, can amend the CIP to reflect changes. Mr. Knapp said that he is uncomfortable to leave in a number that is too big due to situations encountered in the past. There have been a lot of assurances on the Town side of not trying to spend up to the number planned. Concerned about scope creep, spending the full amount, and need for accurate estimates in the planning document. Mr. Faiella said he has tasked the engineer to save money and the project is no longer what it looked like back in 2012. Ms. Ku said that in the past there have been times when a project has come in less than what was in the original CIP and end up bonding for less. Ms. Bloom said that the Board of Ed and staff have worked very hard to put forth accurate information and that the BOS and BOE are due the same respect and trust, the BOE has not indicated that money will be spent unnecessarily as planned. Ms. Johnson said to consider technology as a priority when bidding out. Mr. Faiella said that specific bid points are necessary, especially with Hawley. Mr. Wiedemann commented that the project should move forward with accurate estimates and assign the proper number at a reasonable level, thinking that it will not be a $5 million project anymore. Consider how much money will be put into an old building, at some point it becomes a decreasing asset. Mr. Smith said he would not want to come back and be short. Ms. DeStefano said that this is the best information at this point, leave it where it is and there will be more accurate information, debt service is not an issue. MR. KNAPP MOVED TO AMEND THE CIP TO REDUCE THE HAWLEY VENTILATION AMOUNT REQUESTED FROM $5 MILLION TO $3 MILLION IN YEAR TWO. SECOND BY MR. WIEDEMANN. Mr. Lundquist asked what a $2 million reduction will have on the process. Mr. Faiella said that it does not change the process but may need to ask for more money based on estimates. Mr. Tait said that next year the Board of Ed will have real numbers in for each project based on estimates. Mr. Lundquist said that debt cap in year 5 has no bearing, there is a definitive position to rely on. Mr. Eide said that since the CIP is a planning document, is not in support of the motion. Ms. Bloom said the number seems arbitrary, to bring it to $3 million. Mr. Knapp said the motion is to reflect a more accurate number and avoid adding to the project to meet the amount, get away from mentality of adding things in because there is room to do so. It was said at a prior meeting that ductless splits will be much less and if that is a consideration, then the amount requested should be less. The number presented is based on older technology. Mr. Carroll said that he does not think the $5 million is accurate and that it will not cost that much. Mr. Pickard said that the number can be changed at a later date when there are more accurate estimates. Dr. Rodrigue said that looking at fresh air vs. existing air and need to look at other buildings to determine best, most efficient, cost effective systems. Ms. Johnson said she is comfortable with $5 million and what is best for students regarding fresh air. Mr. Lundquist said that at a high level, he understands the rationale of trying to reduce the scope to something that might be right or prudent number to rely on, but truly don’t know the number yet, and does not support the motion because there is a level insinuated of mistrust and does not support that notion, knowing that there will be real numbers coming forward, can amend the CIP, there are ways to address this when there is something tangible to react to. Mr. Smith said that he does not support the motion, but does support being more accurate and asked the BOE to be more prepared going forward. Mr. Lundquist said he wants the BOE to share information, estimates when available. MOTION FAILS. (9-3) (Mr. Knapp, Mr. Wiedemann, Mr. Carroll.) 2  LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Ms. Johnson asked Mr. Marks to clarify the details of the $25,000 for pickleball. Mr. Marks said a $25,000 donation will be provided in year 1 for additional pickleball courts. Ms. Johnson said that pickleball is a very social sport attracting people of all ages, very senior friendly, a resource that can be put in Town with good hourly use, the pickleball court at Treadwell is not enough. MS. JOHNSON MOVED TO AMEND THE CIP AND MOVE THE PICKLEBALL ITEM FROM YEAR 3 TO YEAR 1 IN THE AMOUNT OF $290,000. SECOND BY MS. DESTEFANO. MS. JOHNSON WITHDREW MOTION IN ORDER TO RESTATE. MS. DESTEFANO WITHDREW SECOND. MS. JOHNSON MOVED TO AMEND THE CIP AND MOVE THE PICKLEBALL ITEM FROM YEAR 3 TO YEAR 1 USING $265,000 IN BONDING AND $25,000 IN GRANTS. SECOND BY MS. DESTAFANO. Mr. Mattegat, asked how many pickleball courts in Newtown. Mr. Marks said there is a pickleball court at Treadwell and set up two portable nets in the parking lot area by Woodbury Hall. Mr. Mattegat asked if it was possible for Town departments to build the courts. Mr. Marks said the Town can do the ground work to contractor specs, but do not have the expertise for the rest of the work. Mr. Mattegat asked if out-of-town guests use courts. Mr. Marks said yes. Mr. Mattegat noted that if limited to Town residents may not need additional courts. Mr. Marks said that there would need to be a way to restrict usage and do not have the capacity to monitor and police the courts. Ms. Bloom said she thinks that adding pickleball courts will increase the charm and vibrancy of the Town. Mr. Knapp said that having out-of-town people come into town in a good thing, people shop local and patronize businesses. This sport is popular with seniors, the fastest demographic in Town, and a most compelling reason to move it from year 3 from year 1 is the gift that will be provided in year 1. Mr. Wiedemann asked for comment on other projects that were be moved. Mr. Rosenthal said that there were other items moved. Mr. Knapp added that the grant aspect proves compelling. Mr. Lundquist asked if use for Edmond Town Hall would mitigate use for additional courts. Mr. Marks said that playing indoors vs. playing outdoors and would not act as a substitute for outdoor play. Mr. Smith asked if it has been competitively bid, Mr. Marks said that estimates are based on those vendors used for tennis courts, confident in estimates, and will go through a bidding process. Mr. Wiedemann asked about the location and proximity to the new community / senior center, Mr. Marks explained that there may be opportunities for combined programming efforts due to convenient location. MOTION PASSES. (9-2) (Mr. Carroll, Mr. Mattegat) Mr. Lundquist asked for any final comments on the CIP, Mr. Eide noted that the BOE put savings as flat as the payback amount, but the savings aren’t going to be flat because energy costs are increasing and there is inflation, it justifies the expense. Mr. Lundquist said the next step is to send recommendations back to the Board of Finance. MR. WIEDEMANN MOVED TO REFER THE 2019-2020 TO 2023-2024 CIP WITH LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL RECOMMENDED CHANGES BACK TO THE BOARD OF FINANCE FOR REVIEW. SECOND BY MS. DESTEFANO. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSES. (11-0) VOTER COMMENT: none. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mr. Lundquist announced there will be Special Meeting of the Legislative Council on January 9, 2019 at Town Hall South. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:44 pm. Respectfully submitted, June Sgobbo, Clerk Attachments: Newtown Bee article, communication. THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AT THE NEXT MEETING. 3 Your name: Matt Lechner Your e-mail address: mattlechner@optonline.net Subject: PROPOSAL FOR TOWN-OWNED LAND Message: From: 4714026 [mailto:4714026@optonline.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 8:14 PM To: 'Dan Rosenthal' Cc: 'George Benson'; 'Christal Preszler' Subject: FW: Form submission from: Contact the Board of Selectmen Mr. Rosenthal - are you legally authorized to accept/reject proposals on behalf of the Town, or is that just something you have adorned unto yourself ? Keep in mind, in recent years zoning authorizations have been held to represent fungible (representing money and having value capable of calculation) interests – so if you act outside of your authority to reject a proposal for Town-owned land based on improper, contrived, and/or biased withholding of zoning approval, a legal argument could be made that equates the lost value of the potential project to unlawful misappropriation just like unlawful misappropriation of any municipally-owned asset, such as fuel, vehicles, materials etc. I just took a look at the M-5 zoning you have posted on the internet and see it allows a “Waste Treatment Facility”. And you people have the gall to tell me that our proposed use is worse than that ? That we can’t have a pet cemetery because of zoning? “zoning blocks your proposal” ………. Sure it does. Sure it does. You jerks. What is the real reason ? Trying to make an inside deal with your friends ? So many of our local governments in Connecticut have gone sour, gone bad. Sad to see Newtown is in that group. Maybe you could include some additional verbage to “help guide” people who find out about the property via LoopNet, something like: “politically connected insider deals are strongly preferred”. Sad to see the Newtown town government is in the “rotten” category. From: 4714026 [mailto:4714026@optonline.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 3:14 PM To: 'Dan Rosenthal'; 'George Benson'; 'Christal Preszler' Subject: RE: Form submission from: Contact the Board of Selectmen As uses for land go, this is an extremely nice use – why on earth would you not want it ? It is a beautiful use for the land, it should generate very nice financial value for the town - either lump sum, over time, or some combination thereof. Pet industry commerce is one of America’s most successful economic activity categories, that is a plain fact. Why can’t Newtown benefit from that a little? Some nice jobs will come with it, very nice ones which should be there for a long time. It will benefit the Blue Colony Diner, and other businesses in Newtown. Why on earth would you be opposed to it ? From: Dan Rosenthal [mailto:dan.rosenthal@newtown-ct.gov] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 12:09 PM To: Matt Lechner; George Benson; Christal Preszler Subject: Re: Form submission from: Contact the Board of Selectmen Dear Matt, Thank you for your email and for your interest in Newtown. As Christal stated, the land is not zoned for the proposed use which is the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission. That being said, with no disrespect to you or your project, it is not a use I intend to advocate for either. Best regards, Dan On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 2:55 PM Matt Lechner via Newtown CT wrote: Submitted on Monday, December 17, 2018 - 2:55pm Submitted by anonymous user: 69.123.126.239 Submitted values are: Your Name: Matt Lechner Your e-mail address: 4714026@optonline.net Subject: DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL // TOWN-OWNED LAND Message: LOG IN TO OFFICIAL RECORD // TOWN-OWNED LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL From: 4714026 [mailto:4714026@optonline.net] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 2:53 PM To: 'Christal Preszler' Subject: RE: 6 Commerce Road follow up: Newtown, CT You’re very welcome ! Thank you ! What I would suggest, by way of suggestion – at least we could get it in front of the Board of Selectmen. That way, they can consider a small amendment allowing the use. It would probably be a one-page effort. It is a nice proposal overall. You can ask any shopping center developer – what is the hottest retail use category – pet industry. We have been looking for the right site for a while, and this may be the right site.  From: Christal Preszler [mailto:christal.preszler@newtown-ct.gov] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 2:33 PM To: 010203040506073 Subject: Re: 6 Commerce Road follow up: Newtown, CT Matt, Thank you so much for the additional thoughts. I checked with the Director of Planning and this is not an allowed use in town. Christal On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 2:08 PM 4714026 <4714026@optonline.net> wrote: One thing I would say is if you own it, think like an owner. If you are taking money in via, perhaps an on-going royalty on plot sales – various and sundry taxes which might otherwise be collected might well be more than fully offset by the monies realized from the real estate revenue. From the standpoint of environmental impact, I’m not sure what the concern is – a well-run cemetery presents a very low profile from an environmental standpoint. Also – assuming the project is a success, and there is every reason to think it would be – other businesses locally and local people locally would benefit. Not to pick the Blue Colony Diner out of the blue sky, but if there were a significant pet cemetery at this site – revenues at the Blue Colony would likely be bolstered by a good bit. We’re not going to run a restaurant at the cemetery, but of course people coming for ceremonies and later for visits, they would likely want to eat locally. Also, there would be a certain amount of work involved. For example, landscaping and excavation – and these are potentially good jobs for local people. A site attendant, a bookkeeper, a marketing person, etc. I could operate the excavator myself, but I would leave that job on the table, for openers. I understand it may not be what you have been thinking of, but it is really not such a bad idea. Think of all the veterinarians within say a 3 hour drive, who could be appointed as sales agents. There are a lot of them, and not that many nice facilities for deceased pets. Pet industry commerce is one of the most successful and vibrant areas within the economy today. Let me attach my NYU Real Estate transcript, so that you can see I have some credentials behind this. Maybe you can consider it and talk amongst your colleagues and we could at least attempt dialog. Matt Lechner – Westport, CT From: Christal Preszler [mailto:christal.preszler@newtown-ct.gov] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 12:05 PM To: 010203040506073 Subject: Re: 6 Commerce Road follow up: Newtown, CT Matt, Yes, it is in the Exit 10 area and the Town owns the property. Due to the desire to collect taxes on a future use and the possible environmental impacts, the first thought is that a pet cemetery would not be a preferred use at that location. Best, Christal On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 4:19 PM 4714026 <4714026@optonline.net> wrote: Hello & thanks for sending ! Looking at the google satellite photo – I see this site is not too far from the Blue Colony Diner, one of my favorites ! I am assuming the Town owns the site, as opposed to only marketing it ?? if that is the case, can you tell me in your opinion, would the Town respond favorably to a phased development of a pet cemetery ? The location is pretty good for this potential use, and we have been quietly looking around for a site to do this, for a while now. Do you think it would have a chance there from a land-use approval standpoint ? Matt Lechner From: Christal Preszler [mailto:christal.preszler@newtown-ct.gov] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 2:32 PM To: 4714026@optonline.net Subject: 6 Commerce Road follow up: Newtown, CT Matt, Thank you for your inquiry into the property at 6 Commerce Road, Newtown, CT. I am attaching some information on the site, and hope that you will call me with any additional questions you have. Best, Christal -- Christal Preszler Town of Newtown Deputy Director, Planning Department Economic and Community Development 3 Primrose Street Newtown, CT 06470 203-270-4282 christal.preszler@newtown-ct.gov newtown.org fairfieldhills.org newtown-ct.gov NewtownSandyHookEats.com -- Christal Preszler Town of Newtown Deputy Director, Planning Department Economic and Community Development 3 Primrose Street Newtown, CT 06470 203-270-4282 christal.preszler@newtown-ct.gov newtown.org fairfieldhills.org newtown-ct.gov NewtownSandyHookEats.com -- Christal Preszler Town of Newtown Deputy Director, Planning Department Economic and Community Development 3 Primrose Street Newtown, CT 06470 203-270-4282 christal.preszler@newtown-ct.gov newtown.org fairfieldhills.org newtown-ct.gov NewtownSandyHookEats.com The results of this submission may be viewed at: https://www.newtown-ct.gov/node/39323/submission/54843 Thank you! Got it, thanks! Got it. ReplyForward On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 10:18 AM Steve Hinden <stevehindenbof@gmail.com> wrote: Dan and Michelle, I have some observations and thoughts following the joint meeting of the LC and BOF of December 19. It is sometimes difficult to fully flesh out reactions to what we hear in the meeting, so please indulge me, as I have been giving what I heard a lot of thought. I realize that reasonable minds can differ, and that with more deliberation minds can change, but I do hope these thoughts are kept in mind as we deliberate. Paul and Jim, please consider this correspondence, as it is not my intention to invite debate via email. • The budgets you present should reflect needs and reality. As the Board of Selectmen and Board of Education develop its budgets, thoughtful and prudent approaches are what we have seen and expect. I don’t believe that historical budget increases are the benchmark or represent “guardrails” for what you should present. It is perfectly appropriate to have those historical increases as context, but not as guardrails. This is particularly true for the Board of Education budget, which as I observed in the meeting has had budget increases that have been well below those of our peers. • The impact of potential reductions in state support for education should not be isolated to the Board of Education budget. We have an obligation and duty to provide for the education of our students. While we hope that the efforts of our state delegation can avoid a significant impact and gap in our budget, it may be that we will face multi-million dollar reductions in this support. I heard it suggested that the Board of Education keep this in mind as it develops its budget; I want to suggest that if there is such a shortfall, it does not fall solely on the Board of Education. This town as a whole shares the obligation and duty for education, and in my opinion, this means some combination of support from the BOS budget, the BOE budget, expansion of the grand list (if possible), increase in taxes (if necessary), and rethinking our CIP policy are all elements that must be considered to meet the needs of education. • BOE funding for administration and overhead is just as critical as funding for “in classroom” elements in achieving our education objectives. At the December 19 meeting, and in other meetings I’ve attended, the view has been advanced that “administration” is simply overhead and does not significantly improve attainment of our education objectives; in other words, spending on administration or overhead is somehow lesser or wasted spending vs. spending on teachers or classroom supplies. Taken to the extreme, this view would suggest that all we need are teachers, classrooms and supplies, and we know this cannot be true. Quality support from administration, including curriculum coordinators, counselors, principals and the like, as well as investment in physical plant, allow teachers to achieve so much more than they would without that support – and it would be a mistake to suggest otherwise. This requires a balance, not a view that funding should favor one element versus another. I am interested in the views of my fellow board members on all of the municipal boards, and I look forward to continuing this dialogue in our future meetings. Many thanks for considering these points. -- Steve