City of Meriden, CT - March 5, 2007 Minutes

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

The Meriden City Council’s regular meeting of March 5, 2007 was convened at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Mark Benigni. Mayor Benigni led the Council in the salute to the flag and Matthew Dominello offered the invocation. The Clerk called the roll. Present: Matthew Dominello, Keith Gordon, Brian Kogut, Patricia Lynes, George McGoldrick, Michael Rohde, David Salafia, Hilda Santiago, Sandra Maier Schede, Trevor Thorpe, Anthony Tomassetti and Stephen Zerio.

ATTENDANCE AT PUBLIC COMMENT: Matthew Dominello, Keith Gordon, Brian Kogut, Patricia Lynes, George McGoldrick, Michael Rohde, David Salafia, Hilda Santiago, Sandra Maier Schede, Trevor Thorpe, Anthony Tomassetti and Stephen Zerio.

OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: Debbie Moore, Acting Corporation Counsel; Robert Tait, Director of Finance; CityplaceLawrence J. Kendzior, City Manager.

Stephen Zerio, made a motion, seconded by Matthew Dominello, to invoke Rule 20 to bring forth a Consent Calendar and to approve the minutes of February 20, 2007 and to adopt the Consent Calendar as previously prepared. Motion carried unanimously.

CONSENT CALENDAR

Item 2. Presented by Keith Gordon and David Salafia, by request.

Be It Ordered, that a pole and streetlight be installed on addressStreetPlumb Avenue in the vicinity of the cemetery; and

Be It Further Ordered, if this isn’t feasible the lights on adjacent poles have their lumens increased.

Referred to Public Safety.

Item 3. Presented by Michael S. Rohde and Brian F. Kogut.

Whereas, the City of CityplaceMeriden through a contract with a private hauler provides the removal of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and Recyclables within the City’s Inner Tax District; and

Whereas, the funds for this operation are collected by applying a higher tax rate to the property owners located within the Inner Tax District; and

Whereas, The Council approved $488,199 in the 06/07 Fiscal Budget (Acct. #0001-3357-390) to pay for the pickup and disposal of both the MSW and Recyclables; and

Whereas, the actual costs for these operations due to a new contract with the hauler, will be approximately $828,199 which results in a short fall in this account of $340,000; and

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

Whereas, The City has the obligation to continue to pickup and dispose of MSW and Recyclables; now, therefore,

Be It Resolved, that the City Council should approve the transfer of funds from the accounts noted below to cover the expected shortfall:

Acct. #0001-0213-201 $170,000

Acct. #0001-0213-255 $ 85,000

Acct. #0001-0213-265 $ 85,000

Referred to Finance.

Item 4. Presented by Trevor Thorpe, David Salafia, Hilda Santiago, Michael S. Rohde, Patricia Lynes, Sandra Maier Schede, Matthew C. Dominello, Sr.

Whereas, the Meriden City Council and the Board of Education have and continue to work collaboratively to provide enhanced early childhood education opportunities; and

Whereas, the State of Connecticut is encouraging communities to provide full-day kindergarten opportunities to students through a 10% bonus added to the normal reimbursement percentage for school construction; and

Whereas, the planned addition will not allow for universal full-day kindergarten, although it will quadruple the number of seats currently available; and

Whereas, the Hanover Elementary School was chosen for this addition, as the school site is large enough to accommodate the proposed addition without the taking or acquisition of new property; and

Whereas, the current building has recently been code update and enhanced, and therefore, it is expected that minimal infrastructure work will be needed to accommodate this planned addition; now, therefore,

Be It Resolved, that the Meriden City Council names the School Building Committee to oversee this construction project; and

Be It Further Resolved, that the Meriden City Council authorizes an appropriation of $200,000 to fund the preparation of plans and specifications for full-day kindergarten classrooms at the Hanover Elementary School; and

Be It Further Resolved, that the Meriden City Council authorizes the Meriden Board of Education to file an application for a school building project to construct a full-day kindergarten addition to the placePlaceNameHanover PlaceTypeElementary School.

Referred to Finance.

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

Item 5. Presented by Matthew C. Dominello, Sr., by request.

Be It Resolved, that a streetlight and pole be installed in the area of addressStreet97 Elizabeth Avenue.

Referred to Public Safety.

Item 6. Presented by George E. McGoldrick.

Whereas, property to be transferred to the City under the tax agreement with NRG is currently valuable open space; and

Whereas, it is in the best interests of the City of placeCityMeriden to preserve this land as open space; and

Whereas, the City’s zoning regulations currently do not contain a provision for the preservation of undeveloped open space zone; now, therefore,

Be It Resolved, that the City Manager and Director of Planning and Development are directed to prepare a resolution for a zoning change to create an open space zone; and

Be It Further Resolved, that the entire parcel of land to be transferred to the City as part of the tax agreement be rezoned for preservation as undeveloped open space; now, therefore,

Be It Resolved, that the Director of Planning and Development is directed to identify additional parcels of land, including but not limited to, watershed lands purchased with state open space funds for rezoning as undeveloped open space.

Referred to Economic Development, Housing & Zoning.

Item 8. Claims submitted against the City by Jorge Diaz, addressStreet5 addressStreetGreenway Place, CityMeriden, StateCT; John W. Archambeault, Jr., addressStreet65 Tumblebrook Road, CityMeriden, StateCT; Janis A. Grier, addressStreet240 Hicks Avenue, CityMeriden, StateCT; Edward Shemkovitz, addressStreet82 Shelley Road, So. Meriden, CT; Robin Skoglund, 132 Oxbow Drive, Meriden, CT; Edward Raiselis, 265 Paddock Avenue, Meriden, CT; Michael Faulkner, 42 Paddock Avenue, Meriden, CT; Vladimir Zhitnitsky, 10 Roger Avenue, Cheshire, CT were referred to Legal and Safety & Risk.

Item 15. Golf Course Commission Meeting Minutes of January 22, 2007 were filed with City Clerk.

Item 16. placePlaceTypeSchool PlaceTypeBuilding Committee Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2007 were filed with City Clerk.

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

Item 17. Falcon Field/Washington Middle School Project Meeting Minutes of January 31, 2007 were filed with City Clerk.

Item 18. Advisory Board on Aging Meeting Minutes of February 2, 2007 were filed with City Clerk.

Item 19. Flood Control Implementation Agency Meeting Minutes of January 2, 2007 were filed with City Clerk.

Item 20. Municipal Pension Board Meeting Minutes of February 13, 2007 were filed with City Clerk.

Item 21. Meriden Police Department Monthly Report for January 2007 was filed with City Clerk.

Item 22. Presented by Mark D. Benigni and David J. Salafia.

Whereas, a Public Hearing was held on December 18, 2006 for this item; now, therefore,

Be It Hereby Resolved, that Section 213-11 of the City Code entitled “Interpretation of Use Regulations” be amended as follows:

The first sentence shall be deleted and replaced with the following:

Any uses not specifically permitted shall be deemed to be prohibited, including, but not limited to, check cashing establishments licensed pursuant to Sec. 36a-580 et seq. of the Connecticut General Statutes, tattoo parlors, body piercing establishments, and pawn shops or pawnbrokers licensed pursuant to Sec. 21-39 et seq. of the Connecticut General Statutes.

Referred to Economic Development, Housing & Zoning.

Item 23. Presented by Anthony D. Tomassetti, Stephen T. Zerio, Mark D. Benigni, Matthew C. Dominello, Sr., David J. Salafia, Trevor Thorpe, Keith Gordon, Brian F. Kogut, George E. McGoldrick, Patricia D. Lynes, Hilda Santiago, Sandra Maier Schede and Michael S. Rohde.

Whereas, expansion of placeCityMeriden’s tax base benefits all taxpayers; and

Whereas, development of commercial and business properties increase the tax base without overburdening municipal services; and

Whereas, properties in placeCityMeriden available for development are limited in number; and

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

Whereas, the Planning Department has noted as part of the Chamberlain Highway Corridor Study that properties along the Chamberlain Highway and in the area of the Westfield Shopping center are suitable for future commercial development and recommended that such properties be designated for that use; and

Whereas, the property owned by the State of Connecticut commonly known as the Undercliff property is part of the corridor and would be suitable for commercial development; and

Whereas, that property was originally transferred to the State of StateConnecticut by the City of placeCityMeriden; and

Whereas, the City Council identified the transfer of that property back to the City of placeCityMeriden for future development as a prime objective for its State delegation’s legislative agenda; now, therefore,

Be It Resolved, that the City of Meriden formally request the State of Connecticut to transfer said property to the City for future economic development, subject to the satisfactory relocation of the State facilities currently sited on that property; and

Be It Further Resolved, that by this resolution the City Council requests that the members of its state delegation work to effectuate this transfer; and

Be It Further Resolved, that upon such transfer the City Council consider the rezoning of said property to the C-3 to permit commercial development and to conform to the zoning of contiguous properties; and

Be It Further Resolved, that upon such transfer the City put forth a request for proposals for the economic development of said property.

Referred to Economic Development, Housing & Zoning.

Item 24. Letter to Planning & Zoning Department from Petrucelli Builders requesting that addressStreetSophia Court be accepted as a addressStreetCity Street was referred to Economic Development, Housing & Zoning.

Item 25. Letter to City Council and Mayor from Juliet Burdelski, Development Administrator re: CDBG-33 Proposals. CDBG Public Hearing will be Thursday, March 8, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. at placePlaceNameSenior PlaceTypeCenter.

Item 26. Presented by Mark D. Benigni, by request.

Whereas, in 2001, the City of placeCityMeriden was awarded $167,200 in Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds for the City Planning and Public Works

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

Departments to complete specific streetscape improvements around the existing Amtrak railroad station; and

Whereas, the Greater New Haven Transit District, as the administrator of the FHWA grant, has informed the City that it must complete the project by 2008 in order to receive the grant funds; and

Whereas, these improvements will help improve the quality of life and allow for increased safety of pedestrians traveling to the Amtrak station and to the Meriden Transit District bus stop; and

Whereas, there is a 20% or $41,800 in-kind match required for said grant, and the Grants Administrator will document the 20% in kind match by tracking time spent by the Public Works and Planning Departments towards implementation of the project; and

Whereas, payment for said grant is on a reimbursement basis; now, therefore,

Be It Resolved, that an appropriation of $167,200 is hereby made for said grant, of which $167,200 will be reimbursed; and

Be It Further Resolved, that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute any and all documents pertaining to this grant award.

Referred to Finance and Public Works and Parks & Recreation.

Item 27. Presented by Mark D. Benigni, by request.

Whereas, in 1998, the City of Meriden was awarded $550,000 in Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection funds for park improvement projects under Connecticut Urban Act Program (CUAP) Outdoor Recreation Grant #CUAP 1998-05; and

Whereas, a balance of $255,491.13 in grant funds remain for improvement for the following City park facilities through May 6, 2008: North End Field, Quinnipiac Riverwalk, Girls Softball Complex, Ives Park, Dondero Park and Hanover Play area; and

Whereas, in order to close out and receive payment of grant funds for improvements scheduled for North End Field, Quinnipiac Riverwalk, and Girls Softball Complex, the City must appropriate an equivalent amount of funds into the existing accounts so that funds can be drawn and reimbursement requests can be made to the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection; now, therefore,

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

Be It Resolved, that the City Council does authorize the transfer from appropriate accounts of previously authorized amounts to the following CUAP of $100,000 to the Quinnipiac Riverwalk (Acct#0401-7340-907-0008), $100,000 to the Girls Softball Complex (Acct#0401-7340-907-0010), and $55,491.13 to the North End Field (Acct#0401-7340-907-0020) so that reimbursement requests can be made

to the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection for those equivalent amounts; and

Be It Further Resolved, that the City Manager, CityLawrence J. Kendzior, is hereby authorized to execute any and all documents necessary to secure said grant funds from the State of StateplaceConnecticut.

Referred to Finance and Public Works and Parks & Recreation.

Item 28. Presented by Brian F. Kogut, by request.

RESOLUTION AMENDING A RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING $10,000,000 FOR NEW SCHOOL ROOFS AT PLATT AND placePlaceNameMALONEY PlaceTypeHIGH SCHOOLS AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $10,000,000 BONDS OF THE CITY TO MEET SAID APPROPRIATION AND PENDING THE ISSUANCE THEREOF THE MAKING OF TEMPORARY BORROWINGS FOR SUCH PURPOSE.

Section 1. Section 1 of the resolution entitled “Resolution Appropriating $10,000,000 For New School Roofs At Platt and Maloney High School And Authorizing The Issuance Of $10,000,000 Bonds Of The City To Meet Said Appropriation And Pending The Issuance Thereof The Making Of Temporary Borrowings For Such Purpose” adopted by the Common Council on June 7, 2004, as amended (the “GPIB #59 Resolution”), is hereby further amended by adding the following new appropriation “Hanover Elementary School – Preparation of Plans and Specifications – Full Day Kindergarten Classrooms (Acct. #0401-7359-983) - $200,000”, thereby increasing the total appropriation therein by $200,000 from $18,529,300 to $18,729,300.

Section 2. Section 2 of the GPIB #59 Resolution is amended by increasing the total amount of bonds of the City authorized to be issued therein by $200,000 from $18,529,300 to $18,729,300.

Section 3. Section 7 of the GPIB #59 Resolution shall be applicable to the appropriation added by this amendment, as of the date of adoption of such amendment.

Referred to Finance for Public Hearing and Board of Education.

Item 29. Presented by Stephen T. Zerio.

Whereas, the City has acquired addressStreet56 Willow Street through a foreclosure action; and

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

Whereas, by letter dated November 14, 2006, Deepak and Neerja Bhatia, adjacent property owners, inquired about acquiring the vacant lot at addressStreet56 Willow Street; and

Whereas, by letter dated December 13, 2006, Deepak and Neerja Bhatia were asked to provide the City with their best and final offer for the above mentioned property; and

Whereas, by letter dated January 22, 2007, Deepak and Neerja Bhatia offered $10,000 for the above mentioned property; and

Whereas, at a meeting on February 28, 2007 the Economic Development Task Force recommended this property be sold to Deepak and Neerja Bhatia for $10,000 with the condition that the property not be developed or used to increase density in any other lot; now, therefore,

Be It Resolved, that the aforementioned property is hereby declared surplus and may be disposed of by said Task Force and that the City Manager be authorized to execute any documents related to the sale.

Referred to Economic Development, Housing & Zoning.

Item 30. Presented by Stephen T. Zerio.

Whereas, Linda Ness, on behalf of her mother Barbara Ness, sent a letter dated December 11, 2006 to Mayor Mark Benigni; and

Whereas, in the above mentioned letter, the property located at addressStreet333 Hicks Avenue was offered as a gift to the City at no cost to the City; and

Whereas, at a meeting on February 28, 2007 the Economic Development Task Force recommended the above mentioned property be accepted at no cost to the City; now, therefore,

Be It Resolved, that the City Manager is authorized to execute any documents related to acquire this property.

Referred to Economic Development, Housing & Zoning.

Item 31. Presented by Patricia D. Lynes.

Whereas, the Connecticut Youth Services Association has notified the City of Meriden, Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Youth Services of a grant award in an amount not to exceed $5,000 from March 15, 2007 to June 30, 2007; and

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

Whereas, the City of Meriden, Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Youth Services, is requesting to submit a grant application in order to provide a youth leadership project to Meriden youth; and

Whereas, the receipt of this grant has no financial impact on the City’s General Fund; now, therefore,

Be It Resolved, that the Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Youth Services, is hereby authorized and directed to enter into contract for a

grant from the Connecticut Youth Services Association in an amount not to exceed $5,000; and

Be It Further Resolved, that the Director Health and Human Services, Beth Vumbaco, is hereby authorized and directed to sign such contract, and that the Division of Youth Services is hereby designated to administer said program and all activities will be carried out under the direction of Beth Vumbaco, R.N., M.S., Director of Health and Human Services.

Item 32. Presented by Stephen T. Zerio.

Whereas, the City of CityplaceMeriden owns the property located at addressStreet100 Twiss Street, consisting of a vacant lot; and

Whereas, Ms. Karen Carver, who lives at 96 Twiss Street, Meriden contact the City of Meriden and expressed an interest in the property; and

Whereas, addressStreet96 Twiss Street is adjacent to addressStreet100 Twiss Street and Ms. Carver wishes to use the property as a garden; and

Whereas, the Economic Development Task Force Committee recommended that Ms. Carver and the City of Meriden enter into a licensing agreement whereby Ms. Carver could use the property at 100 Twiss Street for gardening purposes, but title to the property remain in the name of the City of Meriden; now, therefore,

Be It Resolved, that the City of CityMeriden enter into the attached Licensing Agreement with Ms. Carver for addressStreet100 Twiss Street and that the City of CityplaceManager is hereby authorized to execute the same on behalf of the City.

THIS AGREEMENT, made this ______day of _____________,2007, by and between THE CITY OF MERIDEN, a municipal corporation specially chartered by the General Assembly of the State of StateConnecticut and located in the PlaceTypeplaceCounty of PlaceNameNew Haven, acting herein by its City Manager, duly authorized, and herein called

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

“Licensor”, and KAREN CARVER, of the City of CityMeriden, PlaceTypeCounty of PlaceNameNew Haven and State of placeStateConnecticut, herein called “Licensee”.

In consideration of the mutual promises and agreements herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the Licensor hereby grants a license to the Licensee, subject to all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the following described property: a portion of the parcel of land known as 100 Twiss Street, Meriden, that portion being bound and described as on Schedule A attached hereto.

1. USE – The Licensee shall use the licensed property solely for gardening and for incidental purposes related to such purpose. The Licensee shall so conduct her activities upon the premises so as not to endanger any person lawfully thereon; and shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the Licensor and all of its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims for losses, injuries, damages and liabilities to persons or property

occasioned wholly or in part by the acts or omissions of the Licensee, her agents, officers, employees, guests, patrons or any person or persons admitted to said premises by said Licensee while said premises are used by or are under the control of the Licensee. The Licensee hereby assumes full responsibility for the character, acts and conduct of all persons admitted to said premises by consent of the Licensee, her officers, employees or agents. The Licensee shall so conduct her activities upon the premises so as not to endanger any person lawfully thereon.

2. REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE – The Licensee shall repair and maintain the licensed property in good condition and repair at her own expense.

3. INDEMNIFICATION – The Licensee hereby waives any claims against the Licensor, its agents or employees, arising from or related to the use or condition of the leased premises. The Licensee shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the Licensor and all of its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims for losses, injuries, damages and liabilities to persons or property occasioned wholly or in part by the acts or omissions of the Licensee, her agents, officers, employees, guests, patrons or any person or persons admitted to said premises by said Licensee while said premises are used by or are under the control of the Licensee. The Licensee shall reimburse the Licensor for any costs, expenses or fees incurred by the Licensor in any litigation or negotiations prior to litigation to which the Licensor may be a party or be involved, caused by acts of the Licensee or due to accidents or occurrences against any liability for which the Licensee has hereby agreed to indemnify the Licensor. The provisions of this paragraph shall apply only to the extent that said losses and liabilities are covered by any policy of insurance.

4. UTILITIES – The Licensee shall pay for snow removal, cutting grass and all other upkeep charges.

5. ASSIGNMENT – The Licensee shall not assign, transfer, sublease, pledge, surrender or otherwise encumber or dispose of this license or any estate created by this license, or any interest in any portion of the same, or permit any other person or persons, company or corporation to occupy the premises without the written consent of the Licensor being first obtained.

6. TERM – This License shall be effective upon execution and continue until terminated as provided hereinafter. The Licensee expressly agrees that this license may be terminated by the Licensor at any time at will as it in its sole discretion determines the public necessity and convenience requires, by serving upon the Licensee a written notice of its election so to terminate. The Licensee agrees that if the Licensee shall assign this license or otherwise dispose of the whole or any part of said licensed premises or use the same for any purpose but that hereinbefore authorized, or shall commit waste or suffer the same to be committed in said premises or injure or misuse the same, or in the event the said Licensee makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or be placed in receivership or adjudicated bankrupt, or takes advantage of any bankruptcy or insolvency law, then this license shall thereupon by virtue of these expressed stipulations therein expire and terminate and the Licensor may at any time thereafter reenter said premises, and the same have and possess as of its former estate, and with such reentry, may recover possession thereof, and that all right to any reentry is hereby expressly waived by said Licensee. The Licensee may terminate this License at any time without cause, by serving upon the Licensor a written notice of her election so to terminate, provided, however, that any obligations of the Licensee incurred pursuant to this agreement prior to such termination shall remain in effect. Upon any termination of this license, all improvements, which shall then be on the licensed property, shall become the property of the Licensor.

7. HOLDOVER – It is further agreed that in case said Licensee shall, at any time hold over the said premises, beyond the period above specified as the termination of this license, then the said Licensee shall be

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

bound upon the same terms and under the same stipulations and agreements as are in this instrument contained, except that Licensee for any such period shall pay a reasonable charge for use and occupancy.

8. INSURANCE – The Licensee shall obtain and keep in force a policy or policies of general liability insurance that will protect the Licensor and Licensee from an insurance carrier authorized to do business in the State of StateplaceConnecticut, for damages to property or liability to persons arising out of or connected with the premises or the use thereof. The coverage under such policies shall be in the minimum amount of $300,000.00 per occurrence.

9. NOTICES – Any notices which are required hereunder, or which either the Licensor or Licensee may desire to serve upon the other shall be in writing and shall be deemed served when delivered personally, or when deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to Licensee at 96 Twiss Street, Meriden, Connecticut, 06450 or addressed to Licensor at the Office of the City Manager, City Hall, 142 East Main Street, Meriden, Connecticut 06450.

10. MISCELLANEOUS – This License shall be governed by, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of StateplaceConnecticut. This agreement shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties and any prior understanding or representation of any kind preceding the date of this agreement shall not be binding upon either party except to the extent incorporated in this agreement. Any modification of this agreement or additional obligation assumed by either party in connection with this agreement shall be binding only if evidenced in writing signed by each party or an authorized representative of each party. In the event that any action is filed in relation to this agreement, the unsuccessful party in the action shall pay to the successful party, in addition to all the sums that either party may be called on to pay, a reasonable sum for the successful party’s attorney’s fees. The invalidity of any portion of this license will not and shall not be deemed to affect the validity of any other provision. In the event that any provision of this license is held to be invalid, the parties agree that the remaining provisions shall be deemed to be in full force and effect as if they had been executed by both parties subsequent to the expungement of the invalid provision.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE City of CityplaceMeriden has hereunto caused its name and corporate seal to be affixed by the hand of Lawrence J. Kendzior, City Manager, and Karen Carver have hereunto caused their names and seals to be affixed, on the day and year hereinbefore mentioned.

SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED THE CITY OF placeCityMERIDEN

in the presence of: LICENSOR

_________________________________ BY:_______________________________

CityplaceLawrence J. Kendzior

City Manager, duly authorized

_________________________________

_________________________________ BY:_______________________________

_________________________________

A certain piece or parcel of land with buildings and all other improvements thereon, situated in the Town of CityMeriden, PlaceTypeCounty of PlaceNameNew Haven and the State of placeStateConnecticut and known as addressStreet100 Twiss Street, being more particularly bounded and described as follows:

NORTHERLY: By land now or formerly of Adeline S. Onofrio, 54 feet 6 inches, more or less;

EASTERLY: By addressStreetTwiss Street, 26 feet 8 inches, more or less;

SOUTHERLY: By land now or formerly of Walter J. Lesiak, 53 feet 8 inches, more or less; and

WESTERLY: By land now or formerly of Frank Sklepowicz, 33 feet 8 inches, more or less.

Referred to Economic Development, Housing & Zoning.

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

END OF CONSENT CALENDAR

Item 1. Presented by Patricia D. Lynes, by request.

Whereas, the City of Meriden has received notification from the Agency on Aging of South Central Connecticut, for the 27^th consecutive year, of a contract for in-town and out-of-town medical transportation for Meriden residents and out-of-town transportation for Wallingford residents for the Division of Senior Affairs in the amount of $15,600 for the period October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008; and

Whereas, this is a cooperative program with the Wallingford Meriden Chapter of the American Red Cross which provides the out-of-town transportation for Meriden and Wallingford senior citizens under this grant program; and

Whereas, this is a very valuable service for placeCityMeriden’s older residents since there are limited resources for out-of-town medical transportation; and

Whereas, the Red Cross has provided transportation to medical appointments in Hartford, New Haven, Waterbury and other Connecticut cities as well as to Boston and New York City with volunteers driving Red Cross vehicles; and

Whereas, upon acceptance of this grant the City will be contributing in-kind services, which include personnel and office supplies financed from the City’s General Fund; and

Whereas, the receipt of this grant has no other financial impact on the City’s General Fund; now, therefore,

Be It Resolved, that Beth Vumbaco, R.N., M.S., Director of Health/Human Services shall be and hereby is authorized to execute a contract on behalf of the City of placeCityMeriden, Department of Human Services, Division of Senior Affairs, in accordance with the aforesaid project. Beth Vumbaco, R.N., M.S., Director of Health/Human Services shall process and submit all of the documents required that are relative to this contract.

Patricia Lynes, made a motion, seconded by Matthew Dominello, to adopt. Lynes explained she asked this item be taken off of the Consent Calendar as there was a question from the public as to what happens to these funds. She feels the resolution very clearly explains how the funds are used. They are to fund the gas transportation expense for Red Cross vehicles that are used to transport senior citizens to out of city and out of state medical appointments. It is a grant that is not funded by the city’s general fund. We know the grant comes from tax dollars but it does come from tax dollars throughout the state. Everyone is helping a little bit. What we will do because the question was asked specifically about people who volunteer their services to drive and have not apparently not been reimbursed for those expenses, we will inquire about that and

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

find out what the real situation is, who these folks are and if they should be reimbursed. Motion carried unanimously.

Item 7. Presented by Brian F. Kogut.

Whereas, the City Manager has submitted his budget proposal to the City Council as required by Section C5-2 of the Charter; and

Whereas, Section C8-5 of the City Charter requires that the City Council hold one or more public hearings on the proposed budget not later than seventy-five days before the end of fiscal year, and publish notice of such public hearing(s), adopt a budget no later than twenty days after the final public hearing and set the tax rate in mill within ten days after adoption of the budget; now, therefore,

Be It Resolved, that:

1. The proposed budget be referred to the Finance Committee for consideration; and

2. A public hearing be scheduled on the proposed budget on April 17, 2007, or such other date(s) as the Finance Committee shall determine, with notice as required; and

3. The Finance Committee meet to consider the proposed budget in accordance with the dates as it shall determine; and

4. The Finance Committee report back to the City Council with its budget recommendation no later than April 27^th, 2007 and the City Council act to adopt a budget for FY2007-2008 no later than May 7^th, 2007, and meet to adopt a tax rate no later than May 17, 2007

Stephen Zerio, made a motion, seconded by Patricia Lynes, to adopt. Zerio stated before this document is referred to the Finance Committee for its deliberation he felt it would be appropriate to ask the City Manager to give a brief overview of his budget recommendation to the City Council and to the public at large. Kendzior stated two things he would mention first before he addressed the proposed budget. People should realize and I’m sure they do, this is very early in the process. As the resolution states the budget will not be adopted until May 7^th and we have several weeks to receive further information on items that impact the budget for the Council to go through its deliberations. Certain numbers that are in this budget will change, particularly those that are impacted by deliberations and decisions in the State legislature on the state budget. One thing that I do want to do here again before addressing the budget is to apologize to those employees who may be impacted by this budget proposal. Information on the budget proposal was given to certain persons, it was given to them confidentially. All of the employees that may be impacted by this budget proposal were to be informed by their department heads today prior to submission of the budget and I believe all of you were. However, very specific information on this budget proposal appeared in the local newspaper over the weekend. Again, that information did not come from my office. It was given to certain people in confidence and it is very clear from reading the article that appeared in the newspaper that the reporter writing that article had possession of my exact budget message. Notwithstanding that because there is no one else to apologize to, I will, you and your families should have heard this first from your department

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

heads and not have to read it in the newspaper. It is not meant as a criticism of the newspaper because when they receive news they’re going to print it, that’s their function. But details of this information they should not have received in advance of this evening. Going then to the budget summary I did prepare both for the elected officials and for the public a sort of bullet, item by item summary of the budget. This budget proposes to decrease non-education expenditures by about $450,000 and I did say decrease. This will be the first budget in my memory where the proposal is for a decrease in overall non-education expenditures. There is no additional local tax revenue that is necessary to balance this budget other than what results from the actual growth in the grand list. We all know this is a revaluation year. The revalued grand list is 49% higher than it was prior to revaluation but we have taken the old grand list and computed the tax number that results from the actual growth, the additional properties that have come on to the grand list. No more local tax revenue other than that which results from the natural growth of the grand list is necessary to balance this budget. Another way to state that is again, apart from revaluation, implementation of the revaluation assessments will cause some taxpayers to pay more money, some taxpayers to pay less money in taxes but no taxpayer will pay any additional tax because of increased city expenditures at all. Again, that means there is no change in the effective tax rate. The mill rate will change because we implement revaluation. Were this not a revaluation year and this budget were adopted and successfully implemented there would be no change whatsoever in the mill rate. There are several other pages here that contain items. The remaining items on the first page are sort of a summary of those and I will be going directly to the items mentioned. One of the major components of a budget for a city like placeCityMeriden is the amount of state revenues that we receive. The governor has made a certain budget proposal to the legislature. The legislature will act on that budget proposal. It is likely, unfortunately, that the legislature will not act on their budget until after this council is required to act on this budget. I don’t expect the legislature will act until the beginning of June and the council must act at the beginning of May so it will serve us well to keep a very close eye on the budgetary proceedings as they proceed through the legislature. There are many items in the governor’s budget which have a very, very large impact on our local budget and one item in particular, education funding which will make all the difference one way or the other with regard to this proposed budget. I wanted to highlight for you with that second page the situation with regard to the City of placeCityMeriden and the state revenues. Some of those revenues are statutory grants. It depends on the level that the legislature funds them to and when we receive them. Certain reimbursements for other items, some of those items will be impacted by the fact that we’re implementing revaluation. The amounts of reimbursements in some cases depend on what our mill rate is, that is true for example with the reimbursement that we receive because the state has decided that certain manufacturing equipment will be exempt. As our mill rate decreases the amount that we’re going to be reimbursed for that is obviously going to decrease. Some of the other items may increase. Certain PILOTs (payments in lieu of taxes) that we receive from the state may increase as value of state property increases and so forth. That won’t be reflected in this budget because those PILOTs are based on the prior year numbers. At least two items I want to highlight in particular. Last year at the very close of the legislative session and just prior to when the council adopted its budget the legislature approved a revenue sharing amount out of the state’s surplus for that year. The amount that placeCityMeriden received was $817,075. That surplus revenue sharing is not part of the governor’s proposal and frankly given the proposals that are in front of the legislature in education and health and in other areas it is very doubtful to me that we will receive anything like that or that that item will be funded at all. You will also notice a very large decrease in what is

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

called School Building Grants. The process by which we are reimbursed for school construction currently is a very good process. We invoice the state. When they approve it they send those funds pretty regularly and we’re able to go along in our school construction process without having to borrow a lot of money ourselves. This is a changed process from many years ago there is one school construction project from the old process where we wouldn’t receive reimbursement until years later, that is the Benjamin Franklin School project and the amount of that grant goes down every year. This year it will decreased by $657,254, a very large sum of money in our budget. You’ll also see a $58,000 decrease in interest on the school bonds, that is for the same reason. The total decrease in state revenues that is expected based on the governor’s budget at this point is almost $1.9 million dollars which is a very large and significant sum of money for the state and for the City of placeCityMeriden. The governor’s budget does have a rate increase for education funding but the flip side of that is several of the statutory grants are much lower. So we sort of start our budget process in the hole by almost $1.9 million dollars. I want to comment briefly on a few of the local revenues. There are fees paid to the City Clerk upon the conveyance of property, that amount has increased in recent years for two reasons. One is that there have been a lot more sales of property and second the legislature passed a law allowing us to increase the rate of those conveyance fees. That legislation sunsets. It is before the legislature again this year. If that law is not put back into effect the amount of lost revenue to the city will be much in excess of the amount that is listed there. I’ve assumed in my budget that the legislature will renew that particular provision. We budgeted last year 2.1 million dollars in these kinds of things. I’m estimating a decrease of $100,000 because of decreased activity in the real estate market. You’ll see two items in there, one for tax collector interest, one for property taxes in prior years. I’ve decreased our estimate for those items based on what’s been the experience of the last two years. That is actually something which reflects well on the city and reflects well on the tax collection operation that we have. The reason for the decrease is that we have done a good job collecting delinquencies and the amount that is available to collect in delinquent taxes is simply much smaller. I’ve listed the payments that we have received from NRG. As most of you know those amounts are by the agreement in excess of 3 million dollars. NRG has been making payments of 90% of that amount. We are in litigation with them over the validity of the tax agreement and also over the amount that their property is assessed for. I have recommended in the last two years and continue to recommend this year that we not include the entire amount of the NRG payment in our budget because we need to set money aside in case there is an adverse decision in the litigation that is ongoing. You may recall that several years ago there was other litigation with the utility companies and that money was not reserved and as a result the city experienced a very significant bonding requirement when those cases were eventually resolved. Also I’ve listed without a figure the bond loan repayment fund, just to remind you those are funds that have been accrued in this city for repayments on items that were originally bonded over the years. The appropriated sum of $5,000,000 into the general fund a couple of years ago we can use that to offset increases in bond payments and my budget this year continues to do that. One item of good news, some good news is that our investment income has increased in the 04-05 audit. It is on track this year to increase and I’ve increased the amount anticipated in next year’s budget by $650,000. We are in a much better cash position due to better financial decision making than we have in the past and it is also correct that the interest rates that are available on the kinds of investments that we are allowed to make have increased. That sheet also shows at the bottom the sum that would be due in increased taxes simply from revenue from the grand list. On the expenditure side you’ll see several items listed at the top which are also good news and

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

which have a beneficial impact on the proposed budget. For the first year in my recollection we have no increase in the amount of expected health benefit claims. Councilors will recall that two years ago we negotiated concession agreements with several of the bargaining units, all but one in fact. Part of those involved a wage deferral but part of those also involved changes in the health benefit plans. Those changes plus frankly good experience, have resulted in this year not requiring an increase in funding for health benefit claims. Health benefit claims for employees of the City of Meriden total over $24 million per year and in past years, last year there was an 11% increase that was anticipated, the year before that was 15%, so you can see those are very significant sums of money and the changes that we have made, and as I have said good experience have made it not necessary to do that this year, so it is a very large cost avoidance. The same is almost true with regard to pension benefit contributions. The Council has chosen to fund those as recommended by our actuaries over the last few years. The necessity for increases in that amount has slowed very greatly. The Police Pension Fund and the Fire Pension Fund will require lower amounts than were required last year. Part of that again is due to good experience and part of it is also due to the fact that new police officers and fire fighters are in the city pension plan. There is an increase required for the regular city municipal employees plan but it is an increase that nets out with the other pension fund of only a couple of hundred thousand dollars as compared to increases greater than a million dollars in prior years. The cost of workers compensation and hypertension claims is not increased in this budget and there actually a small decrease. That is due again to better control of our medical expenditures and changes in those plans. Insurance costs are slightly lower in this budget, mostly because we received and offered to renew at basically the same rate and accepted their offer for one more year before we go out to bid. Debt payments are decreased in this budget by a million dollars. That is due to better controls that the Council has exercised over bonding authorizations in the last two years. That is a small amount and if the council continues to hold the line on those kinds of expenditures, as best as it is able that can be anticipated to decrease further as we go along in future budget years although you do have several projects coming up that will effect this rate. Energy related expenditures have increased by $500,000. As most of you know we have formed an energy committee composed of staff members and months ago we have taken several initiatives, some of which have been approved by the Council, some of which haven’t required that approval but have been put in place. We’ve audited our bills, we’ve changed some of our lighting, we have applications in to the Clean Energy Fund for fuel cells, we have other ongoing projects and those projects will impact those costs. What they do is decrease the amount of increase that is necessary. Those energy related expenditures are going to increase as I said by $500,000 and that is probably on about $2,000,000 worth of expenditures so you can it is a very high rate of increase. Employee wage increases, those are wage increases that are due to the employees under their collective bargaining agreements or amounts that we have estimated for those bargaining units whose contracts are up and due to be renegotiated. Those increases are approximately $1,000,000. In order to bring about a budget proposal that in fact doesn’t require any additional tax revenue and holds the line on expenditures, there are a lot of difficult things that you will be asked to do in this budget proposal, things that will have a real world impact on our employees and will have some impact on the services that people receive. Some of those are summarized on the next sheet. We will be placing the employees on furlough, a one day layoff if you will, for three days in the next fiscal year, it’s the Friday after Thanksgiving and as it happens this year Christmas Eve Day and New Year’s Eve Day are Mondays so there is an obvious opportunity to save some expenses there and maybe a little bit of those energy costs that we were talking about

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

before. I’m going to detail for you changes in positions that are proposed in this budget. What you should take away from that in terms of summary is that the savings in those proposed changes is approximately $1.1 million dollars an amount which is approximately equal to the contractural wage increases that we are otherwise obligated to pay. The amount of that savings will be offset by severance payments. There are employees who are entitled to be paid out for their accumulated sick and vacation time and those payments will be made if those employees leave city service and there may be unemployment costs. It is very, very hard at this point to say what will happen to particular employees if this budget proposal or something like it is adopted. There are some positions which are currently vacant. There are other positions which are vacant into which employees can bump. We will be offering a retirement incentive for employees who are already retirement eligible but have not chosen to retire. The exact nature of that is still being developed by staff here, by our actuaries. Obviously, we want to offer something that is an incentive to people to retire so that we can offset some of these other consequences but we can’t do that in a manner that is simply obligates us to increase our budget for future years in order to adequately fund the pension plan. That is still to be developed. Very quickly let me read over for you for the benefit of the public, the positions that will be impacted by this proposal. It is proposed that the Safety & Risk function be transferred to the City Manager’s Office. The reason for doing that is that there is a clerical position in that division that this budget proposes to eliminate and it is the City Manager’s Office that will have to pick up the needed work. There is a part time position in the Council Office which is not funded in this budget and frankly I felt is was appropriate, first of all to spread these cuts over every department when it is possible to do so, and particularly appropriate that the City Council operation be impacted by this proposal also. There are six part time positions in the library that are not funded. Those are three Librarian I positions and three librarian clerk positions. The impact of that change if it is adopted is the library is going to have to decrease the hours that it is open. There are two account clerk positions, one in Finance and one in Tax which are not funded. They are both part time positions. There currently is a vacancy in the tax office and depending on the other consequences of implementing this proposal there may be a position there that someone can occupy. There is a position in the Purchasing Office which is not funded. There is a lower grade position in the budget which is funded. I think that is a change that can be made without significant impact on the operation of the Purchasing division. There is an assessment technician position that is not funded. I have proposed to you a very significant change, one that you’ll have to give careful consideration to. That is to consolidate the positions of the Tax Collector and Tax Assessor. The tax collector position is not funded in this budget. In 1992 the voters of this city approved an amendment to the charter which allows for those two positions to be combined. It is my feeling and this is no reflection on the tax collector as she is doing a satisfactory job in her position. I think there are opportunities here to realize a significant savings and even to make the operations of those two divisions more efficient if we’re able to negotiate some cross training things with the bargaining units that are effected. There is a technician position in the MIS department which is not funded. I have also proposed another significant change in our operations, and again, something that you’re going to need to take a close look at, that is the consolidation of the positions of the Building Official with one of the mechanical inspector positions. The new position would require that the person in that position be a certified building official and that they also be either a certified electrical inspector or a certified plumbing inspector. Again, this is an opportunity to achieve some savings. You will decide what the impact of that consolidation will be on city services. I have proposed in the budget that the Zoning Enforcement Officer position

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

which is funded and located in the Planning Department be shared with the Engineering Division. The person who occupies that position currently is a licensed land surveyor and would be of assistance to us in particular with regard to flood control work. There are two police patrol positions which are not funded. The article that some of you may have read indicated that there would be lay offs, that is not the case. There is currently one patrol vacancy and there will be other patrol vacancies prior to the time that this budget is implemented so no police officer is going to be laid off. It is my opinion from my past discussions with all of you it is necessary to continue the very good work and progress that we have made in the Police Department. I do think that the changes that we have made will enable us to not fund those two positions for this year. We have done things which have gotten more police out on the streets to do police work. We have also this year very late in this budget year there are many police officers that have been hired and are coming out of the academy who will be going out onto the streets and frankly that will be enough of a hurdle for the police department to overcome. There is an additional engineering position funded in this budget. It is my opinion that the work of our Engineering Division has not been proceeding over the last several years at a very acceptable rate. We have problems moving development proposals through our land use process. We also have a lot of additional flood control work that hopefully we will obtain funding for. I have funded an additional engineering position. There are cuts in the Engineering division also, one is of an administrative secretary position and one is one of the two survey assistant positions. As I mentioned before this budget also anticipates that the Zoning Enforcement Officer will be involved in the surveying operation and there are other employees besides the two survey assistants who are involved in that work. The budget proposes to eliminate the crew leader position at the city garage. That person in the position would bump down into one of the remaining positions there. That would impact whoever has the least seniority. The traffic vehicle assistant position is not funded in this budget. There are also not funded positions of traffic sign maintainer and highway laborer. I’ve indicated to you in my budget message and I will indicate to the folks here tonight and the public, that is not because I find some kind of deficiencies in the operations of those divisions but it was simply to get to a number and as I said I made an effort to spread the cuts across all the departments. In the Parks Department, again one significant change is the elimination of the Park Supervisor position, that is a high level position. It is his feeling that the re-organization of the former large department into smaller departments will enable the Parks Department head to look to devote more of his personal time to the supervision of those operations and for that reason I am recommending elimination of that position. He has also not funded one laborer and one maintainer position. There are a number of changes proposed to the Health/Human Services operation. Most of those are reduction of hours of current employees that are detailed in the budget message. There is one certified position that is not funded.

To summarize this, on the city side and there was a question from the public tonight as to how many employees do we have. On the city side as of the posting of this budget is 514 employees. The changes I just outlined to you, although they are significant and have an obvious impact on the individuals involved or may become involved through the bumping process but on a percentage basis the number of positions effected is not very high. Overall wages for the city employees excluding police and fire is $28,417,229. My budget recommends a reduction in that amount of $1.1 million. That is about 3.9%. Again, significant to the city, significant to our services and certainly significant to those employees that are impacted by it but not a large percentage reduction but enough to allow us to fund the budget in the way I have described.

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

A word about the education funding in this budget. The governor has recommended a very great increase in educational cost sharing funds. The ECS increase that would come to placeCityMeriden if the Governor’s budget is adopted is very large, $6,304,653. It exceeds the amount that the Board of Education actually requested and they made that request prior to the governor’s budget proposal. There are other changes in the governor’s proposal in the special education area and with regards to magnet school funding which may impact our budget and will need to be closely watched. There accountability measures in the governor’s budget proposal, programs that will be required if schools don’t achieve certain test results. Those have budgetary implications so all of the increased ECS funding may not be available for whatever purpose the board decides. Kendzior has as he has done in prior years tried to make his best estimate what the legislature is going to do and it is a very perilous undertaking because you can never be sure and this is a very significant proposal from the governor. It is very controversial because it is funded by increases in the state income tax. For the purposes of this budget I have assumed that budget proposal is going to be approved. The current law requires that the entire amount of any increase in ECS funding be appropriated to the Board of Education. That $6,304,653 is not available to offset expenses on the city side. The whole amount would have to be appropriated to the board. There is a discussion in placeCityHartford that proposals may be made to change that law and that proposal to the best of his knowledge has not come forward yet. If the governor’s proposal or something like it and if a significant increase in ECS funding is not adopted the Council is going to have a very difficult decision to make. You’re going to have to decide to give greater funding to the Board of Education out of the local tax dollars or you’re going to have to decide if the Board of Education should be subjected to the same process that the city operations are. Kendzior mentioned that the health insurance expense in the Board’s request will actually be 1.5 million less than the board anticipated and that is because there is no increase in expected health benefit claims. There are other expenditures in the Board budget and without getting into the details and in his opinion are over estimated. Should the Council need to there are cuts that you can make to the education request without notably impacting services. One last subject and that is revaluation. He stated as he indicated earlier the grand list is increased by 49%. That is the good news. It is good news even though it is common to all of the municipalities in placeStateConnecticut and it is a nationwide phenomenon you have done work here that has allowed the city to share in these increases. However those increases are not equal across the different classes of property. As you can see here residential property values on average since the 2001 valuation have increased by 71%, commercial values by 33%, large apartments of five units or more by 40% and industrial property by 28%. That shifts a portion of the tax burden onto the residential taxpayer. It also means with the growth in the grand list that you will be decreasing the mill rate. The other impact of decreasing the mill rate is that you bring in less property taxes for motor vehicle property and for personal property, manufacturing equipment and so forth because of that decrease in the mill rate. There are various options to implement revaluation that are set out by state law. Again, revaluation is something that is mandated by the State of placeStateConnecticut and we must do this and we have completed the reassessment. The assessor and Kendzior have studied the impact of those different options on different classes of property and have used particular properties to illustrate that impact. You have those charts and graphs attached. The implementation option that is recommended to you is a two year phase in of revaluation done by within each property class, increasing the assessment proportionately by the amount that they bear of the sales ratio data to the 70% assessment amount that is required by state law. The difference with that option from simply an equal phase in is that any property which was undervalued in 2001 will have a bigger

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

increase through this method of implementing revaluation. I think that is an equitable thing to do so that we bring all properties in every class up to a certain level together rather than to allow property that was undervalued to remain undervalued for another year. I’ve recommended a two year phase in as I said in the budget message because despite restrictions on funding that are contained in the budget proposal there are still taxpayers, residential taxpayers in particular who will have large tax increases because of revaluation. I think there is an amount of tax increase beyond which we cannot go, we can’t ask some of these owners to be responsible for these large increases. The way to offset that is to phase it in over two years. On the other hand the purpose of revaluation is to make sure that everybody is paying property taxes in accordance with the value of your property. We only revalue every five years. There are taxpayers that own property in this town who should have their taxes reduced, in this case mostly commercial. In 2001 it was actually just the opposite. Commercial owners property values increased by a higher rate than residential. In order to encourage economic development, in order to encourage growth in our grand list, which would ultimately result in tax benefits for everybody we do need to implement revaluation within the two year period. That gives businesses and our economic development team the certainty that the decrease in the mill rate will occur within that period so that is why I recommended that particular option that you’ll need to study. We are preparing various kinds of materials to illustrate for you the different impacts from revaluation. Zerio thanked the City Manager for the overview and knows there is a motion on the table to adopt this as a referral to the Finance Committee. Tomassetti asked if the City Manager is considering an early retirement package for the employees. Kendzior stated the question that was asked by Councilor Tomassetti was whether we considered an early retirement proposal. Kendzior stated what we are considering and what we will present to the Mayor and Council is a retirement incentive. That particular proposal will only impact certain bargaining units. It will be aimed at people who are already retirement eligible and have not chosen to retire. There will not be an offer that will make someone retirement eligible who is not currently retirement eligible. A large number of employees are retirement eligible and have not chosen to retire in some instances. It is absolutely their choice but in some instances the retirement of certain of them will offset some of the other parts of this budget proposal. It is clearly up to them. The actuaries are studying the impact of this proposal. As I said we are aiming at something that offers people an incentive to retire but doesn’t cause us to increase the amount of needed pension contributions so that we completely undo the savings that would come from the retirements. The retirement incentives that you may be referring to that were offered now several years ago gave a large number of retirement points and years of service to employees who were not retirement eligible. In his opinion the cost of those incentives was greater than the savings that subsequently accrued to the city. Many of the people that retire are in positions that will need to be replaced and you do get a small amount of savings because the person duly appointed to the position is paid at a lower step than the person who is retiring. That doesn’t last a long time but we will be offering a retirement incentive. We are still working out the details. Tomassetti stated that was a long answer that said no to early retirement. Tomassetti would like Kendzior to look at an early retirement incentive. Kendzior stated he would be happy to get him the numbers and discuss that with him. Tomassetti stated it only works if you don’t replace the people that are retiring. Kendzior stated he knows some of the employees effected by this budget proposal in particular aren’t going to believe this but in his opinion there are not employees currently working for the city who are not busy, who are not working hard, who are not contributing to the delivery of city services and there very few positions frankly, other than the ones outlined in the budget proposal, in his opinion there are

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

people in those positions who do not need to be replaced. He thought if there were positions like that other than the ones indicated in the budget proposal he would have proposed they not be funded in this budget proposal. Tomassetti stated he would talk with the City Manager because he has a couple of ideas. Gordon stated in regards to the state revenue you specified a reduction to the school building grants. It is his understanding that if the job had already been approved such as placeCityLincoln at 82% reimbursement already approved might be reduced to 76%. Kendzior stated that is not what the reduction involves. He explained that placeCityLincoln is a good example. As we go along in the construction process the State of placeStateConnecticut reviews our expenditures and reimburses us, not as quickly as we like, but as we go along, so there isn’t any great backlog of reimbursement that is due to us. In prior years, before that process was put in place, what would happen you would construct a school, the municipality would borrow the money, bond it, and the state would later reimburse the municipality. That is the old process, it is not the new process. We have one school building project that was done under the old process, that was placePlaceNameBenjamin PlaceNameFranklin PlaceNameSchool. Every year for the last few years since we completed that project the state has been reimbursing us year by year by certain amounts. That reimbursement is going to be complete. It is not a decrease in the percentage of reimbursement, although a decrease in that is proposed by the governor, it is simply the old process reimbursed us later and the last project where that was done was Benjamin Franklin, and we’re about to receive almost the last payment. Next year we will receive the last payment and you’ll have another hole of a similar size in the budget. Benigni stated before we continue this discussion this item was on for adopt with a hearing and meeting scheduled. If we’re going to continue this type of discussion he is very uncomfortable when there are employees here that were impacted by this and people who may want to speak on this that we continue this discussion. He stated he has given some latitude and the City Manager presented his report but it is not fair to the public that we have this discussion unless we’re going to give them an opportunity to discuss these issues too. This is not the forum or the time unless we’re going to let the public speak on the issues. Michael Rohde made a motion, seconded by Matthew Dominello, to approve. Motion carried unanimously.