City of Meriden, CT - October 20, 2003 City Council Minutes

Stephen Zerio, made a motion, seconded by Patricia Lynes, to adopt. Zerio stated that these two properties are part of the parcels are known as the Legere property collectively and the Council has already approved sending out a request for proposal to see what can be done with the two other buildings. The two remaining buildings were contemplated for demolition because of their condition and the report that the Council had received previously indicated that it is highly unlikely that there could be any rehabilitation to these properties. He also stated these properties are part of the historic preservation of our city and are under different regulations that are applied by the state. The City wants to be sure before any action is taken that involves demolition that every measure is taken to see whether or not there is any interest in these properties for rehabilitation. At this time the committee has disposed of these properties which will go through the Economic Development Task Force, if the Council approves, and will be added to the RFP that has already been approved. Benigni stated he credits the committee for making this recommendation. He feels we need to demolish these two structures as the feasibility study states clearly that there will not be private interest without significant, millions of dollars of city support, to revitalize these buildings. He feels at this point it is best to move forward with demolition but understands that there are some hoops that need to be jumped through to make sure there is no private interest and recommends that the Council moves forward with the committee report. Motion carried unanimously.

Stephen Zerio, made a motion, seconded by Patricia Lynes, to adopt. Zerio stated this ordinance has undergone a lot of work by the committee. There have been two lengthy public hearings. After the first public hearing the resolution was sent back for revision and review by staff based upon the comments that were heard. A second public hearing was held last week and this particular committee report was adopted. Zerio asked the indulgence of the City Council to invite City Planner, Dominick Caruso to come to the podium to give a brief overview as to the ordinance and the process. Zerio stated it had been implied this ordinance had been created at this time for political reasons because of the upcoming election and wanted to refute that immediately. The first time this ordinance was submitted to the Council was back in July. That was three months after leadership had asked the City Planner to start crafting this ordinance and it has been in the system for over six months. Without objection from the Council, Caruso came forward to the podium. Zerio asked Caruso to give a very brief overview of the ordinance and the process and some of the protections in the ordinance. Caruso stated that city leadership and staff have recognized the positive effect of strict code enforcement in the area and felt it was desirous and necessary to go to the next step, that being the preservation of safety, welfare and aesthetics. The ordinance that has been drafted is a cooperative and comprehensive effort to control blight. The proposal is to enhance the minimum of standards of different codes, health, housing, zoning, building, etc. plus add standards beyond just safety and to address quality of life issues such as aesthetics. Staff felt that the city needed an ordinance to address the issues that are not addressed in the normal code and developed the anti-blight ordinance. This is not new for Meriden. The city already has a housing code but this is to enhance what is there. The state statutes enable the city to look into exactly that, an anti-blight ordinance. Caruso believes there are 14 or 15 other communities in the state that have an anti-blight ordinance. The staff looked at those ordinances when developing this one. The need for the anti-blight ordinance is that it deals with visual blight vs. safety issues and addresses commercial property. During the public hearing someone got up and submitted a group of pictures of blight and told the committee that the city should be addressing them. One of the pictures was of the Home Club. As much as the city would like to, this is a commercial situation and the housing code doesn’t cover that. The ordinance also covers unoccupied premises as well as occupied. The only time the city gets involved in housing is when a certificate of compliance is needed when you’re going to rent. If you’re not going to rent the property and keep it closed up, the city doesn’t have anything of force to help them. The ordinance covers property as well as buildings. It extends the purview of control from public view areas. This ordinance now gives the city that right. It creates a public list of all violations. The idea there is if we cite a property the city can put a list of blighted properties together for public viewing. People will understand that the city is going after these homes and these structures . Also if the city so desires this list can be recorded in the newspaper. If a notice is unclaimed and blight creates an emergency the city could abate the violation and lien the property. The issues between this version and the last version that was done during August, is the Council committee wanted to make sure that this ordinance clearly denote that the ordinance

is for the acute offenders and to concentrate on those chronic offenders. The city is going after the person that has already been cited for housing code violations and if the person is not reactive in any way or the city can’t find the person this ordinance adds an additional layer onto our current ordinances. This is clearly mentioned in Section 17.1e of the latest version – “The intent of this ordinance is to provide additional leverage to code enforcement personnel in an effort to bring properties in to compliance, especially those properties where violations are repeatedly found and compliance could not be obtained through other code enforcement. Those who are responsible for blighted conditions on properties and who have failed to comply with other code or ordinance will be subject to strict enforcement of this ordinance”. Benigni asked if there would be a copy of the ordinance available to anyone who wants a copy of it. Caruso stated the ordinance has been on file with the City Clerk as the statute requires. Caruso stated he spoke to someone today that has fear that the staff or city would have an incredible amount of power over this ordinance and as with any ordinance or law the city does have power. This ordinance is different because there are three ways that a citation can be appealed. One can appeal the original notice of having a blighted property to the Neighborhood Rehabilitation Advisory Board. If the person doesn’t like their decision they can appeal the citation to the Citation officer. These two appeals cost absolutely nothing and then there is the court system. Zerio stated the Neighborhood Rehabilitation Advisory Board did support this on the record through a public hearing. Tomassetti asked Caruso if he had sufficient staff to enforce this ordinance. Caruso doesn’t feel this will create any additional work for the staff but stated if it does he would come back to the Council requesting extra help. Caruso stated the city will be going after people that they are currently frustrated with. Gordon asked how many commercial residential properties suffer from blight at this present time. Caruso stated he couldn’t put a number on it. Gordon was curious as to how many properties would have to be enforced at this present time. Caruso stated there are at least five properties that he knows the city has been having difficult problems with. This gives everyone a six month grace period. After that six months the city will pursue them. Kogut stated that the city planner had mentioned that there was a mechanism in the ordinance whereby the city can abate a violation and lien the property. He asked if Caruso was looking for any funds at this point in time and how does the city abate something. Caruso stated we would order the abatement. Kogut stated this would give the city the power to go in and board up the property. Kogut wanted to know if city staff would do the boarding up of properties or does the city hire an outside contractor. Caruso stated it depends on what it is but we would probably use some of the money that we receive from rentals. The city would also look at the demolition and acquisition account. Kogut stated he only asked this because there might be some problem properties that need tens of thousands of dollars to be put into the proper condition and if that happens wanted to know where the funds would be coming from. If money is spent something would come before the council to identify where the funds would come from. Caruso stated that would go before the Economic Development committee as an emergency appropriation. Clermont had a question regarding chronic offenders. Clermont feels most laws should be applied equally across the board to every person in the same way. Clermont asked Corporation Counsel if the city can selectively enforce this law. Kendzior stated he didn’t believe that the city planner intended to give the impression that he can pick and chose only some who are not in compliance with various codes. The problem that the city runs across is that neither the housing, building, or the health code will cover every situation and not every problem can be solved by resort to those codes. This ordinance is to cover those gaps. The ordinance is only selective in the sense that a problem

that a person is trying to evade or resolve can’t be evaded or resolved through use of the other codes and this gives the various regulatory departments another tool to bring those situations into compliance. Clermont stated that looking through the ordinance there must be eight or nine items that could be enforced through the Health Department if called upon. Clermont asked if there has been a cooperation between departments in the past to use the resources available to help in enforcing some of the blight. Caruso stated there is cooperation among departments. Caruso stated once every three weeks all the code departments discuss all code violations. Caruso stated every department, police, fire, planning, building, health meet and discuss the violations so everyone knows what the other is doing. Caruso stated the city has a green sheet form that is a model throughout the country. Clermont stated on 8 Maloney Avenue there is building debris scattered all over the property and felt that the health department certainly has the power to correct. Caruso stated that building debris is not a health violation, it is a housing and building violation. Benigni asked if the city had anything currently available to deal with visual blight. Caruso stated it is difficult to enforce. Benigni asked if the city has anything available to deal with commercial blighted buildings and Caruso stated no. Benigni stated the blight ordinance fills a need that the city currently doesn’t have now. Galotti asked who drafted the ordinance and Caruso stated he and his staff did. Gordon stated that the council heard from a homeowner tonight who stated due to his age, health and finances he felt he was up against what seems to be an inspectors timing of getting something in line versus what he is capable of doing. He wanted an explanation how this might effect a homeowner that has health problems or financial problems but is trying to make an effort. Gordon also wanted to know how much effort does a homeowner have to make on a daily, weekly, monthly or yearly basis to solve problems before getting fined. Caruso believes he knew the person that spoke tonight. City Manager Kemp had been given a picture of the house to see what it looks like. The person has been working on the house a number of years, possibly 5-6. The pictures show if you lived next to the house or down the block, how difficult it is to live there. If that person cleaned it up, not necessarily do the whole thing at one time, he certainly would not be under violation right now. It’s just a matter of the city having a heart. Caruso stated the inspectors do have a heart and try to work with people as much as they possibly can. The inspectors also have people they have answer to when asked what takes so long. In this case that particular home needs to be addressed. Shamock wanted to know what is the next thing that happens after the grace period of six months is given. Caruso stated the city would notify the person that their property does not comply and then be given another two months. Shamock feels that is ample time and agrees with Caruso. Clermont feels the ordinance has merit. He is concerned about the few who don’t have the health or financial resources to take care of their property. Clermont was out to the property of the person who spoke at public comment. Clermont stated by most people’s definition the house probably does suffer from blight however the man is 70 years old with a medical condition that prevents him from taking his house out of blight conditions. The citizen doesn’t have the financial resources to complete the necessary repairs. Clermont doesn’t feel the citizen needs a $100 a day fine, he needs help. The real question is how many people are out there that the city doesn’t know about that are going to get caught up in something that is intended to be good.

a building permit is good for and was told six months. McGoldrick wanted to know if there is a procedure for renewing it and how long is that good for. Kendzior stated that as far as he knew there is no limitation on how many times one can get a new building permit. Feest asked if there were building permits for painting and was told no. Galotti asked Caruso how he felt about the proposed amendment. Caruso stated to acquire a building permit it costs approximately $75-100. Caruso stated again the city is only concerned about those people who are chronic offenders. Rohde stated we can all identify with lack of resources but there are other community programs that can help. There are churches that go out and do painting or cosmetic projects. There are civic organizations that would be more than willing to help. Gordon questioned if he started a job and two weeks later something happened where the job couldn’t be completed would he still have 6 months to complete the project or would he have to reapply. Caruso stated as long as you’re continuously working on the project you wouldn’t have to reapply. If the job did not start you would have to apply for a new application. Shamock stated there are forbearance loans up to $25,000 available from the city. If someone is in dire need of doing repairs to a house this is another option. The only time that the property owner would have to pay that is when the house is sold or they pass away. Clermont stated that he spoke to the citizen about the forbearance loan. The citizen had and applied but doesn’t have the income levels that are necessary to qualify. Shamock explained to Clermont that another option is a reverse mortgage. Benigni stated if we need a blight ordinance this amendment would create a loophole and make the ordinance useless. Joseph Galotti, made a motion, seconded by Brian Kogut, to move the question. Clermont voted Nay. Vote taken on base motion to adopt the amendment. Motion defeated. Clermont voted Aye. Councilors Dominello, Feest, Galotti, Gordon, Kogut, Lynes, McGoldrick, Rohde, Shamock, Tomassetti and Zerio voted Nay.

Gordon asked Feest why he voted against the Anti-blight ordinance during committee and asked if he had changed his mind. Feest voted no that night because he had put forth an amendment to make any properties owned by the city exempt that are in such redevelopment block grants such as but not limited to City Center Initiative. The reason is if we are anticipating redeveloping an area that has buildings that the city has taken over due to foreclosures, back taxes, water liens, etc. and he didn’t want the taxpayers to have to repair these properties to avoid this ordinance and wanted to exempt those properties in anticipation of the City Center Initiative. That was his concern as he was afraid the Legere buildings would fit this category. Feest favors the blight ordinance as he was one of the makers of the resolution. Benigni stated he had dinner a few months ago with the Mayor Thornton of Middletown and they discussed an assortment of programs. He inquired what programs they were using and she made suggestions about using CDBG funding to do some projects up front. Middletown adopted a blight ordinance and they spoke at length about how it works. Part of being a citizen is to make sure that you do your part for the community. Benigni stated he drives past nice neighborhoods where older homes are being renovated and in the middle is a blighted structure. It is time for the city to have a plan of action. The City Planner stated we currently don’t have a tool to deal with visual blight or commercial blighted buildings and we need that tool. The city owned buildings should be placed on the blight list too so we can come up with a plan from a city perspective. Benigni credited the Neighborhood Advisory Board for endorsing this concept. If no one is going to invest money in these properties to bring them up to code then they should be demolished. It is not fair to others

that have to look at them. It is not fair to the person who lives across the street who is out trimming their hedges and making sure that their sidewalk is clean. It is a last resort and is used for extreme cases but we have some extreme cases that need attention. Clermont stated he feels blight is a matter of economics. The bottom line is if one doesn’t have the money you can’t fix it up. Clermont stated Meriden is not a city of great wealth and he found data on the Census Bureau’s website that per capita income in Meriden is $20,597. That money has to go a long way and if the choice is between painting, towing a junk car out of a driveway or putting food on the table, the choice is obvious. Benigni stated he felt that statement was unfair and a gross exaggeration of what we are working on. The city is talking about buildings that have been sitting in disrepair for 15-20 years. The city is talking about buildings that are crumbling, talking about people who buy property for a low cost and sit on it for year after year and let everyone else deal with it. Benigni agreed that we should look for other programs to help the homeowners that can’t afford repairs. Shamock stated he agreed with the Mayor. It is not fair to the property owner that is trying to sell their property and get fair market value if you have a house next door that is in dire need of repair.

Joseph Feest, made an amendment, seconded by Robert Clermont, to add the words “exempt all city owned properties that are in a revitalization redevelopment block grant such as but not limited to the City Center Initiative”. Gordon stated there has been a lot of discussion over the past year about the City Center Initiative. Gordon stated he hasn’t signed on to the City Center Initiative and will not be voting for this amendment if that is included. Dominello agreed with Gordon. He doesn’t think it would be fair to separate the city from the general public. If the city is going to go after blighted properties everyone should be included. If the city expects the general public to take care of their property we should be able to take care of ours. He will not support the amendment. Kogut believes Feest means we shouldn’t fix up a building that we plan on taking down and that makes sense. Kogut asked Corporation Counsel if the city can cite itself and the answer was yes. Kogut said he would support the amendment in some fashion. Lynes stated she could support the amendment if it included a provision that would exclude buildings that we’re going to be demolished. Feest stated that was part of the language he would like to include. Tomassetti asked which buildings had been identified for the City Center Initiative. Benigni stated none as of yet. Tomassetti would like to see City Center Initiative removed from the amendment.

Joseph Feest wanted to withdraw his amendment. Hearing no objection from the Council it was so ordered. Joseph Feest, made an amendment, seconded by Walter Shamock, to add the words to Section J “exempt all city owned properties that are scheduled for demolition”. Rohde felt the Council was mixing apples and oranges with the original blight ordinance. The blight ordinance was primarily for inhabited properties that couldn’t be addressed by the standard. Now the city is talking about abandoned buildings, probably in most cases slated for demolition. We should have regulation and is sure we do. If the city has a property that is abandoned and is responsible for, we have to do certain things. We have to make it safe and secure with plywood and fencing and cut off utilities. He doesn’t want to see two sets of standards. The city is telling homeowners one thing while they keep a property that is unsafe and unsightly. If the city takes over a property they have the responsibility like homeowners to keep it up to certain standards, certainly health and safety first but aesthetics as well. He feels it is hypocritical to have a

standard for folks in dire straits to shape up and then allow the city to leave their buildings any way they want and feels this is unfair. Benigni feels this would just expedite demolition. The city has had buildings sitting in disrepair and blighted for years and it is time to demolish them. Feest stated that we are limited to time frames and that is a concern. Benigni stated it will be approximately two weeks before JayBees and the bank are demolished and the time frame for this has taken months but didn’t know exactly if it was less than six months or not. Feest stated that was the reason for the amendment. It takes the city more than six to nine months to get demolition done. If this amendment will expedite it that would be great. McGoldrick agreed with Rohde. He feels it is unfair to have two sets of standards. We have in the ordinance a provision that we acquire these properties in bad condition and allow ourselves an additional six months to take care of the problems. Taking care of those problems doesn’t necessarily mean demolishing or bringing the code up to code, it could mean simply boarding it up, cutting the lawn or possibly painting it. He doesn’t feel it is an excessive expense and the city should play by the same rules as everyone else does. Kogut asked Caruso if the concern is that the city is going to be spending taxpayers dollars to rehab buildings that are scheduled for demolition. He asked if there is something that would basically make everyone happy. Caruso agreed with the amendment put forth by Feest. Caruso stated the reason we have these buildings is because no one else one wants them. The city is not going out and purchasing property and it is not the city’s fault that the properties are in bad shape. It isn’t the city that put us in these circumstances to begin with. It does take a long time to demolish buildings. If the building is scheduled for demolition he feels it is a good amendment. Clermont feels the amendment has merit but shares some of the same concerns as Rohde over the potential double standards. Clermont wanted to know if this amendment should be extended to homeowners. Zerio stated he voted against the minority leader’s amendment at the committee meeting because the amendment offered at that time was not as defined as the one offered tonight. Zerio stated this document is very well written and definitions are well defined. There is not a lot of wiggle room for loopholes which is why the city should be careful not to include any. One reason he will be supporting this amendment is he doesn’t feel it is a double standard when the city receives these properties after years of disrepair from owners who have not taken care of them, have foregone their taxes and we receive them in the worst possible condition. The city did not have the opportunity of maintaining these properties as other homeowners would. If the buildings are identified for demolition it is important to understand that the time line could often take longer than six to nine months. A good example is the HUB. This would be very expensive to do and fortunately it is not in a blighted condition but if it did take that long for demolition it wouldn't make sense to put in money to bring it up to code. That would not be a fair use of taxpayers money. Zerio will be supporting the amendment. Tomassetti asked Zerio about the City Center Initiative. Zerio stated the City Center Initiative is not very well defined and the project is not necessarily earmarking a particular set of properties. The City Center Initiative is not something that has been approved by the City Council so to include that phrase in an ordinance when it doesn’t even exist yet doesn’t make sense.

Stephen Zerio, made a motion, seconded by Patricia Lynes, to adopt. Zerio stated this is the white Victorian on East Main Street. The city has tried several avenues in order to dispose of this through sale. The city had a proposal a couple of years ago by a firm that was looking to do consulting for college students but the proposal failed. Most recently the Council had voted to dispose of this property with a restricted use. The city went out on RFP and received a couple of bids, none of which were to the satisfaction of the RFP and consequently came back to the city and asked to dispose of this without any restrictions. Benigni stated his concern would be that the Economic Development Task Force is going to make the decision as to what is done here. The RFP process did not bring back viable proposals. Another proposal was to have a bed and breakfast there but that didn’t fit into what the city wanted to do. Benigni wanted the Council to understand they would be placing their authority with the Economic Development Task Force to decide the next steps. Shamock asked Zerio if the abutting property owners were aware of this. Zerio stated they will be informed only if the Council passes this. Shamock stated a year or two ago he was approached by an abutting property owner stating interest in the property and doesn’t know if anything ever came of that. Zerio stated the Economic Development Task Force recommends that the Council approve an RFP so we would have some control over what the use is. In this particular case the City did maintain control. Galotti asked what the zone is on this parcel. Zerio believes it is a C-1. Benigni’s recommendation to the Task Force is if the taxpayers are going to pay for the demolition and property is divided with adjoining property owners the city at the very least should get money back for the demolition. Benigni would also like to see what the open market will bear. Zerio stated this will be taken under consideration. Zerio stated that the Planning Commission reviewed this. Motion carried unanimously.

Matthew Dominello, made a motion, seconded by Anthony Tomassetti, to adopt. Gordon stated during the Public Safety meeting there were a lot of things said that were not reported in the newspaper. Gordon stated he was concerned that he had seen a lack of patrol officers on the street. He realized that the police department was understaffed by 13 patrol officers at one time. The chief is waiting for 5 to get into the field and there are 8 out on injury so there is still a lack of officers on the street. Gordon stated he would like to see patrol and community officers doing walks and be back on their bikes because the citizens liked it when the officers were making contact with the neighborhood. It was also reported that the officers were going to be going back to the neighborhood meetings. Councilors Gordon and Clermont went to a neighborhood meeting and Captain Legere, commander of the West Side was there. Legere told the neighborhood association that the officers will be walking, be more visible and attend meetings. He also told them a call is put in to an officer and you don’t get a phone call back, to call him directly. He is not going to tolerate the officers under his command to not follow up to the neighborhood associations. Gordon stated Captain Legere was one of the original community police officers and is glad that the chief has put him in that position. Gordon also believes that it is the Council’s obligation to hear the citizens concerns and when the complaints are legitimate to make our views

to the City Manager so he can address them with the chief of police. We decided to file the resolution because it was being addressed at the time. Within a 60 day time period the officers name and phone number would be given to the neighbors and would start addressing the neighborhood concerns. What he heard the night of the Public Safety was being addressed and why he voted to file. Dominello feels the Chief did a good job in explaining with his demonstration at the Public Safety meeting that these things were being taken care of. Shamock believes that the resolution does have merit. He believes the officers just introducing themselves to the neighborhood is a good move. He also believes the officers getting out of the patrol car in the inner city is a much easier task than on Pomeroy Avenue or Preston Avenue. Benigni stated there are 28 policing areas, 32 neighborhood associations. Some of those associations are not meeting regularly so that may be the confusion. Shamock stated he would be voting against filing. Motion carried. Councilors Shamock and Clermont voted Nay.

grants administrator at City Hall could be asked to do a little bit more and possibly share his duties between his role here and with the health department. Benigni is concerned because the city is going to have a tough budget and credits the Finance Committee for putting a freeze on new hires. Clermont asked City Manager Kemp if there was anyone in house that had the ability to do this job. Kemp stated the city would have to post this job for current employees to apply. There is one person that Kemp knows of that has a B.S. degree in accounting that may qualify. This job is a accounting job it takes someone with a degree that would have a great specificity in accounting. This is a very specialized job. Clermont asked if this position is more financial than grant writing and Kemp stated yes. It is a job that tracks the grants financially, a number crunching job and it is not qualitative in any respect. Kogut did verify that this was an accounting type of position. Motion carried unanimously.

Brian Kogut, made a motion, seconded by Keith Gordon, to adopt. Kogut stated that when the state was preparing the budget earlier this year one of the proposals was to eliminate the reporting of delinquent motor vehicles to municipalities. Kogut stated people who don’t pay their car taxes and it is reported to us can’t get them registered. There was an outcry from tax collectors across the state and the state decided they would continue the program however they would start passing the costs down to municipalities. For each they “hit” which is a vehicle on the list the city has to pay 50 cents and equates to approximately $5,800 per quarter. The state also passed some enabling legislation that will let the cities pass that fee on. Anybody that pays a delinquent motor vehicle tax can now be charged $5.00. Kogut stated there was a public hearing on this, no one came and spoke and the Finance Committee is recommending charging the $5.00 fee to offset the state fee. Feest stated the city actually makes out in the long run because the city gets its tax dollars that are delinquent which hold someone up from registering their vehicle and Kogut concurred. Kogut stated the biggest problem with motor vehicles is that they just disappear and if someone is paying a real estate tax the city can lien the property. A car it becomes worthless or it is a junk and ends up in a junk yard. Motor vehicle taxes are the most difficult to collect. This ordinance gives us a tool to collect the delinquent taxes. Motion carried unanimously.

Brian Kogut, made a motion, seconded by Keith Gordon, to adopt. Kogut stated that the language speech pathologist has been provided by the city in the past. The Finance Committee found out there is no other community in the state that provides this type of service to the parochial schools. The committee asked Mr. Lutz of the Board of Education to see if the Board of Education might be able to help staff this position as they have several speech language pathologists on staff. Zerio stated this is state law this service be provided. Zerio stated the Board of Education is working on a solution and the city will be hearing back from them. Benigni stated as someone who took speech instruction in elementary school, this is an important service. He would hate for any child who needed it not to have the opportunity to be helped. Benigni is pleased to say that the Board of Education has been working well with the Council and he anticipates they’ll come back with the solution that will meet the needs of the children. Kogut stated if the Board of Education can’t help us, the Finance Committee will be coming back with the recommendation to fund the position. Shamock stated he was at that meeting and is in total agreement that the position is needed. Shamock stated Lutz seemed receptive to the idea. Benigni feels the Board of Education and Council have been working well together and feels confident they can rectify the situation with some sort of agreement between the two. Motion carried unanimously.