 |
AVON TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 12, 2004
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Chamber by Chairman Hines. Members present: Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Carlson, Shea and Woodford.
PUBLIC HEARING: 7:30 p.m. (03/04-81) Lakeview Water Main Assessments
The Town Clerk presented the call of the Public Hearing as follows:
LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Town Council of the Town of Avon, Connecticut will hold a Public Hearing on Monday, April 12, 2004 at 7:30 P.M. in the Selectmen=s Chamber for the following purpose:
To consider and permit all interested persons to ask questions, and to speak in favor of or in opposition to the plan of the Town Council;
(a) To assess 51 owners of record of property within the boundaries of The Lakeview Association, Incorporated for their proportionate share of the $262,715.77 aggregate cost of extending a water main and related appurtenances for the provision of water service, payment of which shall be due in ten (10) equal installments commencing sixty (60) days after notice of assessment is filed in the Town Clerk=s Office.
(b) To lien all affected properties until the assessed amounts are paid.
The following abutting property owners are expected to benefit from the proposed extension and are expected to be assessed for their proportionate shares:
Dated at Avon, CT this 29th day of March, 2004
Caroline B. LaMonica
Avon Town Clerk”
Chairman Hines reported the Town will provide the funding in order to have water mains installed in the Lakeview Area by Avon Water Company, then the Town will assess property owners for their fair share, all property owners have been made aware of the process. The documentation shows the interest rates, being able to pay for it over a ten year period or in one payment.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:33 p.m.
On a motion made by Mr. Woodford, seconded by Mrs. Hornaday, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council authorize an assessment to be levied on the above listed owners of record of property within the boundaries of The Lakeview Association, Incorporated for their proportionate share of the $262,715.77 aggregate cost of extending a water main and related appurtenances for the provision of water service, payment of which shall be due in ten (10) equal installments commencing sixty (60) days after notice of assessment is filed in the Town
Clerk=s Office, and
FURTHER RESOLVED: To lien all affected properties until the assessed amounts are paid.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
MINUTES OF PRECEDING MEETING: March 4, 2004
On a motion made by Mr. Woodford, seconded by Mrs. Hornaday, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council accept the minutes of the March 4, 2004 meeting as read.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
COMMUNICATION FROM AUDIENCE
Carol Tsacoyeanes reported she is representing ACORN, the Avon Community Recreational Neighborhood, a non profit organization whose purpose is to design, raise funds for and construct recreational facilities in Avon. The last two projects that ACORN completed were the Roaring Brook School playground in 1987 and the Avon High School track in 2000. ACORN is currently fundraising to build playgrounds at Thompson Brook School. She became interested in helping with this playground project because of the need. It is a beautiful state-of-the-art facility with a strong academic environment but there is no equipment for the children to play on at recess. There are specific elements of play that are essential to the physical, emotional and social development of children to enhance their educational
experience. The children at Thompson Brook School need to be given more opportunities for daily physical activities, like the students have at Pine Grove and Roaring Brook School. The students at Thompson Brook currently have physical education only once per week, and generally prefer to stay indoors at recess, because as they say ‘there is nothing to do’.
She further reported this past year ACORN was reestablished with a group of concerned parents with the mission of providing the children of Thompson Brook School with a durable age appropriate playground that complies with all accessibility guidelines as established by the Americans with Disabilities Act. We began researching available playground equipment, surveyed the children at Thompson Brook School, asked the physical education teachers for their input and put together a proposal that also meets the safety and testing standards for the playground industry. Pat Smith, the Principal of Thompson Brook School, Dr. Kisiel, Superintendent of Schools, and the Board of Education have all approved our project. We started our fund raising with a target goal of $125,000 and a June 1st deadline, so
that equipment can be installed this summer. We have a hardworking team of volunteers working on the five areas of fund raising; local businesses, community organizations, PTO’s, student cookie dough sales, and a town-wide mailing. In two weeks we have raised approximately $30,000. Although we were not originally planning to come to the Town Council for financial support, especially at this time while you are in the midst of the budget process, we feel it is necessary to form a public/private partnership, to fund this playground. We have come across various individuals unwilling to support our project until the Town shows financial support, a contribution from the Town is a key component for ACORN to move forward with our fundraising. Mike Miller with the Board of Education has agreed to site preparation which will defray some of the installation costs. ENCORE would like to respectfully request the Town Council’s consideration of
financial support. We would like to work with you to identify an amount available from the Thompson Brook appropriation account.
Chairman Hines reported we admire your efforts, and ACORN’s efforts have been a tremendous benefit to the Town of Avon. We would like to take advantage, when you are providing a large amount, and we provide some piece into it. Part of the biggest problem is ACORN’s schedule of trying to do it this year, we have given our budget to the Board of Finance, so that to go back to them with any type of request now, is just about impossible, we do not know where we are going to be on the final budget. Whether there is going to be any funds available out of the Thompson Brook balance is not clear yet, as it is not finished.
Mr. Woodford reported he agrees, plus there have been a lot of people with their eyes on that supposedly pot of money for Thompson Brook School, the Board of Education mentioned it as well for something else. Chairman Hines it does make sense to have a playground with a larger plan for the community to use. Mr. Shea reported we should have a two prong process, the dialogue needs to continue to see if we are able to give you any finances, but what we could do is to provide them with a letter stating that the Town Council supports the project, and that the Town, where appropriate, would be able to do some in-kind services, whether it be engineering, public works, or staff to help out. They can use the letter, to show that we are supportive and we think it is a worthy worthwhile project. The letter
would only mean that we approve of the project, not a monetary commitment. Mr. Carlson reported he agrees, frankly if we had surplus money right now, we probably would give it to them, but we do not, so to at least give them a letter, in fact this is a capital project and if there were money from the Thompson Brook project this would be the thing to do. Mrs. Hornaday reported she agrees, in fact she would not be able to support the use of that Thompson Brook money for anything other than capital expenditures, which is what the voters voted that money that is what they were talking about, so if we were talking about something like a playground or something that would enhance the school area, she would have to agree, but anything else she would not endorse.
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mrs. Hornaday, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council authorize the Town Manager to write a letter to ACORN expressing the support of the Town Council and expressing that this project will enhance the quality of the Thompson Brook School environment for all of the students there, and that the Town Manager request a like letter from the Board of Education.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
Chairman Hines reported we may not know until the June meeting where we stand on the budget, rather than have ACORN come to a meeting we will keep them informed.
COMMUNICATION FROM COUNCIL
Mr. Carlson expressed his concern for Mark Ballantyne, a lifelong resident of Avon, who is serving in Iraq, and is doing fine, but his living quarters were destroyed by mortar fire and two of his colleagues were killed, so he is really in the heart of it all.
Chairman Hines reported we would like to offer our congratulations to the Avon Police Department recognizing them as having been reaccredited by the Law Enforcement Agencies, which can only help us as we try to recruit policemen.
Chairman Hines reported we received a letter from the President of the CRRA, and we found out today that our estimate is too low by $13,500 which we will need to find in the budget. In addition the letter came from the CRRA President urging us to support them against the law suit that the Town of West Hartford is suing them for, which goes back to the original CRRA/ENRON. This was discussed in great detail and he participated in the joint CCM/CRCOG committee, we looked at it and worked with the Legislature, made changes, got a new board and new president in there, and the last thing that makes sense is to go out and start suing them, as we are the ones that will have to pay for it. They are asking for support, but we should take the back seat at this point and not do anything. We are all hoping
that the Attorney General’s case, which is unique and has been done, is successful, and when successful will come back to CRRA and then we should all see the benefits.
Chairman Hines reported we just got a legislative update on the real estate conveyance tax from CCM, and it needs a municipal push, this conveyance provides $250,000 in income this year, and if not continued this is going to make our revenue picture even worse. We should contact our three legislators to inform them that the Town Council urges their support. Mr. Woodford sustained from comment.
OLD BUSINESS
03/04-40 Set Public Hearing: Adoption of Ordinance #71 Restriction on Construction Activities: 7:30 p.m., May 6, 2004.
The Town Manager reported we have 330 contractors, he asked the Town Planner to look at those who have multiple permits and significant dollar values that would tend to affect them, to let them know. Chairman Hines reported this is an ordinance that effects the time when construction can begin and must end in residential areas.
On a motion made by Mr. Woodford, seconded by Mr. Shea, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council schedule a public hearing for May 6, 2004 at 7:30 p.m.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
03/04-55 Appointments
Natural Resources (formerly 03/04-29)
On a motion made by Mr. Woodford, seconded by Mr. Shea, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council table this item to the May 6, 2004 meeting.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
Natural Resources (formerly 03/04-63
On a motion made by Mr. Woodford, seconded by Mr. Shea, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council table this item to the May 6, 2004 meeting.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
Natural Resources (formerly 03/04-55
On a motion made by Mr. Woodford, seconded by Mr. Shea, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council table this item to the May 6, 2004 meeting.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
Avon Water Pollution Control Authority
On a motion made by Mrs. Hornaday, seconded by Mr. Woodford, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council appoint John M. Ernst to serve on the Avon Water Pollution Control Authority for a term to expire December 31, 2007.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
03/04-55 Adoption of Ordinance #70: For the Delinquent Payment of Property Taxes on Motor Vehicles
On a motion made by Mr. Woodford, seconded by Mr. Shea, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council table this item to the May 6, 2004 meeting.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
03/04-65 Review and Discussion: Status Report: Nomination of Avon Center for National Register of Historic Places
Mr. Shea reported he must compliment the Town Planner on his handling of the informational meeting at the Senior Center. Chairman Hines reported the Town Attorney was also available to people and very knowledgeable as was the Town Manager resulting in excellent coordination, without taking any position, but just to help residents who were uninformed. The Town Planner reported the meeting was helpful, as there was a lot of confusion between the creation of a local historic district and the proposal being considered which is nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, which although the permit that is being considered is largely through a federal agency, actually has fewer regulatory aspects to it as compared to a local historic district. It was a little difficult to explain because with
the two you would almost expect the reverse to be true, that is a program that is subject to local review and control might be perhaps less onerous than one that might be registered by the federal government. It conjures up different kinds of regulatory issues and images, but in fact the reverse is true. Marvin Bellis of Murtha Cullina, Assistant Town Attorney, was able to answer many questions that came from the audience relating to the impact of the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act, as it links to the National Registry program. The National Register program relates to the State of Connecticut and that is the Environmental Policy Act, that includes some language that theoretically makes it possible for one private property owner to sue another private property owner who owns a building listed on a National Register if that property owner were to try to demolish the structure. We had Mr. Loether, Deputy Director of the State Historic
Commission, the State agency responsible to act a liaison to the National Park Service for this program, and he did a pretty thorough review of history of the cases that have been brought under this Connecticut Environmental Policy Act, which were very few but the outcome of these cases really has been very much in favor of the private property. He related this as a statistical percentage, as to what are the chances that this would become a reality, is extremely low, something in the magnitude of 20 in 100,000 or 500,000. Mr. Woodford reported if you were the one, it would be important.
The Town Planner reported the Town wrote a letter to the State Historic Commission asking them at the Public Hearing which was scheduled for February 26th, to be postponed to the next regularly scheduled meeting in October. That is still the schedule at this point, but because the Planning & Zoning Commission had decided it would be a better approach to try to build consensus and get a better vision as to whether we want to advance beyond where we are, we did ask the State for permission to withdraw the application at this time, and we have not received an answer as to whether the State Park Service will allow us to do it. We felt it should not be a difficult process to withdraw an application that we feel was submitted before its time, as a result of our paid consultant submitting what amounts to a
draft of a report to the State for preliminary review. We are waiting for a final decision on that. The people attending the meeting at the Senior Center were divided pretty much evenly, pros and cons, the feelings were relatively passionate. We asked at the end of the meeting whether it would be beneficial to have another meeting and the consensus was overwhelmingly yes, and we scheduled another public informational meeting for May 20th, to give people a chance to ask more questions, and a representative from the State Historic Commission will be there to answer questions as well. It will be an informal discussion, question and answer session.
Mr. Shea reported every property owner gets to vote and there are approximately 180, does the Town have any responsibility in making sure that they are informed or making sure that they vote? The Town Planner reported his office has sent out written notices to each of those affected property owners, advising them of the public informational meeting, and will be sending a second notice of the May 20th meeting. There are approximately 60 letters that the State has received to date, the magic number for the defeat of the district is around 90, presently they received 60 opposed. The State indicated they will be kept on file, and if 30 additional property owners were to write letters of opposition, which must be notarized letters, that would mean that the district would not go forward.
Attorney Bellis reported he would like to start from the beginning regarding the basic position we have taken with Mr. Loether the State Historic Preservation Officer on the State Historic Preservation Board, on behalf of the Town of Avon. The matter was originally scheduled back in February, and we asked for it to be tabled until October. We submitted a letter on behalf of the Town saying that this application was submitted by the Consultant, who was engaged by the Planning & Zoning Commission to analyze the study of a potential historic district here in Avon, without formal Town approval. The letter went in asking not that it be withdrawn, but a legal technicality because it was never formally submitted with Town of Avon authorization that it be returned. Then the next stage, if they
refused to return it, that it be allowed to be withdrawn by the applicant. Right now where that stands, is that they tabled it to allow Mr. Loether to consult with the National Park Service, which will not say yes or no, and insist that they have some approval process as to whether or not the application is allowed to be withdrawn, to determine whether or not this issue has come up and to get whatever recommendations the National Park Service might have. In addition to discussing it with their own counsel, the Assistant Attorney General provides counsel to this individual and to the agency involved, and Attorney Bellis is in contact with both on this matter to make them aware of the Town’s position and the factual history that led up to this situation. If the Historic District moves forward, the Town will have the opportunity under the Statute to ‘object’ or to say ‘it agrees with’ or ‘is neutral about’ the proposed
historic district. Unfortunately the way the statute is structured, it does not allow the vote of the Town to count towards either in favor or opposed to the creation of the district. So while the private property owner whether they are a corporation or an individual has the right to vote in opposition to the creation of a historic district, and if there are a majority of such property owners who vote in opposition to a creation of a historic district it will not move forward as a formally listed historic district, but the Town does not have the ability to have that vote registered. Certainly for a statute to create a process where the chief elected officials of a town, are basically shut out of saying what will happen with their property and not have a vote, because obviously everybody has voted for the Town Council. But that set aside as to whether it is legal or not, the Town Council’s vote will not count towards the 90 or so owners that it would
take to make this district not happen. The Town does have a role, if you choose to discuss this with the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer and the State Historic Preservation Board, you have the opportunity to hire an expert to testify in favor or in opposition to the nomination as a whole, or with respect to individual properties that are listed within the District to discuss whether or not that property is appropriately included within the District. If a majority of private property owners vote no, then the District will never the less be forwarded in draft form to the National Park Service, not for inclusion as formal designation on the National Register but for a simple determination of eligibility, that it is eligible to be listed, and that provides the opportunity of individual property owners to compete for different types of income for these properties, some tax benefits potentially if they so desire.
Chairman Hines questioned whether benefits would be for improvements? Attorney Bellis reported if they made improvements to the property to preserve the property, provided the improvements were made in a way that satisfied the criteria established by the National Park Service, that would be the basis. The tax benefits are probably not that significant unless you have a commercial property. Mr. Carlson questioned who would administer that and make sure that indeed those improvements were made in that manner. Attorney Bellis reported the Federal Government would look at whether we are destroying with one hand what we want on the other hand to preserve. It was intended as a means of stopping the government from destroying important historic resources. That program was designed to be
implemented essentially by the States, once you have a State approved program, with a State Historic Preservation Officer, a State Historic Commission or Board, however it is that the State decided to implement it, then that functions as the ‘gate keeper’ so to speak for the federal system. Here in Connecticut there is an additional twist, created by Connecticut law, which the federal government has no role in – it is something that we piggy backed onto as a State, and said ‘if you are an individual property or what is described in the program as a contributing resource in a listed historic district or in a historic district that is being considered for listing, then any individual in the State can bring a private Attorney General action, basically, to prevent the unreasonable destruction of that historic resource. That is the special twist we have here in Connecticut, it has not been used very broadly in the same number of cases, say
that we have seen reported in the newspapers with respect to Planning & Zoning Commission or Inland Wetlands type matters, where people come in and intervene or bring in repentant actions challenging agency decisions. Attorney Bellis reported at the last meeting, there was a gentleman who was very concerned about the affect the district might have on his commercial property, who stated he had spoken to an appraiser who claimed this would reduce his property value by some percentage whether it was the federal or local historic district, and he feared it would also prevent him from perhaps conveying the property in a way that would be beneficial to him at some point, should he decide to sell. The Town Planner reported it brings up a point if a real estate agent were to walk into a business and the owner asked what the establishment of an historic district would do to the real estate guide of my property, he can almost guarantee that that real estate agent is familiar
with what a historic district is and that would be similar to Farmington Center, with rules and regulations, about additions, paint colors, and of course the reaction would be yes, but unless you really understand the benefits of a district if you chose it, it could significantly adversely affect the property. Attorney Bellis reported he simply told the individual that he could not stand before him nor could anyone else and say that there would be no impediment, that this statute does create such an impediment, or potential impediment to what he might do with his property if it involved some wholesale renovation in a way that eliminated its historic value, or would it contribute to the business. Yes, there is a potential impediment. He suggests that the risk is there, based on past use of a statute, it appears to be a relatively low risk, given that it has not been used very much, more often than not the private property owner wins.
Mr. Woodford reported at this particular point in time we are waiting to see if we can withdraw the application, and questioned when the next meetings will be. Attorney Bellis reported sometime between now and November. Chairman Hines reported the next local meeting is in May, and we want to give the Town Planner enough time to develop his report, then we can put it back on the agenda in July. One of the items important to be brought up in May is that there are still so many people in Town that think that if we come up with this historic place, that will have some impact on how it is going to be reserved and it is going to go in the future – and that is so far from being right, and it is unfortunate because they do not understand the Planning & Zoning Comprehensive Plan of Development and their
regulations. The Town Planner agreed, this district process has little to nothing to do with the regulatory approaches that we have available to us and the regulations themselves.
On a motion made by Mr. Woodford, seconded by Mr. Shea, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council table this item to the July 1, 2004 meeting.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
Chairman Hines reported he sent his proposal regarding Towpath School to the Town Council on March 10th , but we have not had any discussion on it. He indicated that the Town Planner presented us with a potential use of the Towpath School, however since then he talked with residents about potential uses and other alternatives. 1. Do not sell the property 2. Notify the Town that we are going to close the school, tear down Towpath School, keep the Annex for school administration, and turn the land into a park like atmosphere like our Town Green, a couple of benches and grass. With so little open space left, our residents might like to see some open space, especially in the Town center. We probably would not get much over $1,000,000 for the land which is what we would be selling it for, not
the buildings. So money is not a big driver, being adjacent to Sperry Park it might be an attractive offer, and give us some consideration. In the beginning none of us were interested in selling the property, we hoped to be able to turn it into a recreation building, that is like getting a square peg into a round hole, you are just never going to make a recreation building out of that, so if we are going to do anything we are going to have to tear the building down and start over. He does not see us having the money in the near future to do that.
Mr. Woodford reported the Town Planner had some excellent ideas as to how that particular piece of property might be developed, and he certainly would like to see those come to fruition, because it sounded very nice and quaint and colonial, that is also an option. Right now he would not be able to say which way he would want to go.
Mr. Shea reported until we market the piece aggressively, it is difficult, because I think everybody is approaching this open minded, nobody really has a preset notion. A park is wonderful, as you drive by though visually it is not really the gateway you would think it is, it is a much higher ground and buffered by a lot of trees, so it would only benefit the people who were living right there in that area. The flip side is, although you use the number of only $1,000,000, some of us might say that is a significant amount of money. He would like to say that he would like to find out what the actual interest is from someone to develop that in accordance with whatever plan you have keeping in the interest of the neighborhood and how it would fit in, and how it would be received, we just do not have enough
information.
Chairman Hines reported we need to see what the comprehensive plan will be first, if that does not get approved by Planning & Zoning, and what the Town Planner said does not all happen, then that is a different story. Mr. Shea reported do we know the time table for that.
Mr. Woodford reported he wants to proceed with Planning & Zoning doing their work, want to see what the property might be worth, and this is also an option, but we cannot say we want to do this tonight. Mrs. Hornaday reported she liked what the Town Planner was talking about for it also, and that in the Town Center here and a nice place for folks who work in this area, to be able to walk over and some of the things that he was talking about, such as little cafes and things. That is one of the things that really is a village kind of an atmosphere which is appealing and in these New England towns, it is what is attractive and people like that. Mr. Carlson reported he thought of a park as a fallback position, and proceed with Planning & Zonings work, he would be in favor of marketing it, and then
after the evaluation, then with whatever happens with the market you may be able to make your decision, then if the park is the best decision to be made at that point, fine. But he really likes that quaint New England village type scenario. Mr. Shea reported it is difficult to chose one until we have all of the information. Mr. Woodford reported so full speed ahead with the Planning & Zoning Commission plan.
Attorney Bellis reported the Towpath School is listed as a possible contributive resource to this historic district, so under the plan provision that allows someone to bring a private attorney general action it falls under that, if you were to proceed to demolish the building, someone would have the ability to bring an action to prevent you from doing that, whether or not they would be successful, he does not know. Chairman Hines reported that could be with anything that we decide to do in the building too. Attorney Bellis reported conceivably, depending on whether or not it alters it in some substantial way, assuming it meets all of the criteria. The Town Council may wish to consider hiring an expert to comment eventually on this nomination, to the effect that it is not a contributing resource and is
not appropriately listed. If the Historic Commission agrees, and you do not oppose it and the district moves forward, and the National Park Service does list it as a contributing resource on the National Register, then you could have a potential problem. If it is not listed, and it is just within the district, then you would have no problem because there is a carve out for those properties that are not a contributing resource. At this point, keep in the back of your minds, as this process moves along, you may want to take the opportunity to have someone with expertise with the Park Service criteria and the State criteria, to make sure that if this is not appropriate to be listed as a contributing resource that you have that action as it moves forward to make sure it is removed. As far as the language of the State Park Service anything over 50 years old, is certainly eligible for consideration as a contributing resource, whether or not it is depends on
certain criteria. Mrs. Hornaday reported to follow up what has just been said. One of her concerns about this when we first were talking about this, was the Town properties. Should we include all of our properties as not being contributing resources, including this Town Hall complex?
Attorney Bellis reported there is a substantive set of criteria, we are talking about, up until this point the procedural requirements of the historic document nomination process, we have not engaged yet in the substantive aspect of this nomination - challenging or questioning whether or not individual properties are appropriately listed. He does not know whether these properties are, or whether they meet the criteria, he is not that type of expert. What he is suggesting to you is as this process moves forward, you have to look at each individual property, and how it is listed, and the criteria that it is suggested it meets. You cannot simply say, as a group, that all properties fail to meet the criteria, you have to evaluate each property and structure on its own to make that argument. The Town
Planner reported he was trying to keep the focus on the planning aspect of it, and this is away from that, Attorney Bellis mentioned an important thing to him recently. The Town’s decision to do something with the Towpath School property or with the reuse of this complex, there would be numerous applications that would have to be filed with the various land use agencies within the Town, principally the Planning & Zoning Commission, site plan approval, perhaps special permit approval in the case of Towpath School some kind of a zone change, or some kind of a creation of a new special zone district to try and realize some of the goals we have been talking about, the small village center concept goals. First of all the decision making process is obviously a very public process, a number of people in the audience tonight contacted him and said they would like to get involved in the preparation of that plan and have input to that, and that absolutely is the way the
process is set up. The Planning & Zoning Commission will be providing opportunities for public input. They want that input, they are not designing a plan in a vacuum. Let us say that the plan is adopted, and it is not to everyone’s liking, and that there is a proposal that comes forward to the Planning & Zoning Commission that they ultimately approve, also through a very public process, with public hearings and public meetings, if there were one individual or group of individuals that were unhappy with that, to try to trim away, to appeal that or express their displeasure would be by suing the Planning & Zoning Commission, similar to the suit for the Marriott Hotel which is nearing completion, and the funeral home which is under way. This does happen once in a while, but given the track record, the chances of succeeding with other methodology is still not good but still a much better way to go. The added risk or liability that the
Town might incur is very minor. Mr. Woodford reported except maybe in the consumption of time. The Town Planner reported that is true, there could be another way to delay the process for a period of time, and we have seen some of these anti competitive interests that are funding lawsuits, finding sponsors for lawsuits, it is a problem related to other towns as well. Mrs. Hornaday reported she brought it up because of the comment for the application, and these buildings would qualify, they are in fact a part of the history of this area.
The Town Planner reported we are looking at this with a high powered microscope, whereas most communities are not, therefore we need to keep this in mind, this actually becomes just a ‘listing of historic places’. As we move forward, and ultimately it is a democratic process, even though we may not be happy with the way the voting is structured, and if more than 50% of the property owners are unhappy it will not happen.
The Town Planner reported getting back to the planning aspect, we will fast track and prepare a plan for the center, and Chairman Meyers is very much in tune with that as well. We can have a copy of a plan for the Town Council to look at for the May meeting. Chairman Hines questioned whether this plan would have Planning & Zoning Commission endorsement. The Town Planner reported it would at least be a plan that the Planning & Zoning Commission has reviewed, critiqued, modified, and scheduled for a public hearing. If the Town Council has that plan and whatever option the Council decided with regard to the school property, then whether you decide not to proceed with marketing which is included in that plan to help draft an RFP, if you decide to hold back for a while, at least we would have a
document that we can look at in the future. Chairman Hines reported he would like to tear the building down and keep it for open space, but if the Town Council decides to market we should develop a plan for the best way to do it, as we do not want to market it and then not sell. Mr. Shea reported as an owner we can decide to market it, and then evaluate the options, whether to have a park and knock it down, but one thing he does not see, as we go further into this process, is putting a lot of money into that building. Chairman Hines reported after hearing the development plans, the options should be clearly defined in the RFP including the things that we like. Mr. Carlson reported frankly he would liken it to a homeowner putting their house on the market, the real estate agent does the work and yes people come to your home, but they can decide not to sell.
Mr. Nolte, the Sculptor renting a portion of Towpath School, reported he would like to propose a third way, which would be to retain the Farmington Valley Health District, he and his wife would form a non-profit group and raise the rental income to the level that would take the building out of subsidy status, and actually allow the income to be put into the building. He also contacted a third non-profit group that expressed interest in being there, if anyone decided not to, and he has outlined some numbers but would like the Town Council’s permission to meet with the Town Manager and Richard Matheny, the Farmington Valley Heath District Director, to work on several ideas for possible future consideration. Chairman Hines reported that would be fine, we just received the information. One of the
things the Town would not want to get into is running a big rental operation of our buildings. We are doing something now with the Health District and the Arts Center, because we have no other use for the building at this time, and they are two good organizations that we would like to help. We do not want to become landlords for private business and so forth, some of them might not be, they may be non profit but we have to be very careful how we do that too.
On a motion made by Mr. Woodford, seconded by Mr. Shea, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council table this item to the July 1, 2004 meeting.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
The Town Planner reported we have two people from the University of Connecticut, Center for Survey, Research and Analysis here tonight. In connection with the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan of Development we hired them to survey 400 residents, a randomly selected sample, so that we could have the results, and they would like to give an overview of the results, the result has been quite positive, our residents feel very good about the community and very good about the future, which is very good news.
The UCONN Researcher reported we asked the simple question ‘how would you rate the overall quality of life in Avon, 59% responded that they rate the Town as excellent and 40% as good, for a 99% rating. This is the highest rating we have ever seen and we do a lot of these surveys, the most has been around 90%, people are happy and that is a good sign, and actually loads into the responses to other questions. We asked two questions on what they like the best about the Town of Avon, 29% said schools, 18% saying the location and accessibility, then town and neighborhood size at 11% was third. When asked what would be the one thing they would change, 28% said they would control growth and development, 9% taxes, 7% would not change anything. On the idea of growth and
development we asked what is the most important issue now facing Avon, 33% responding said it was managing growth and development, 10% said school education issues, 10% budget related to education, 9% said taxes, 8% budget in general. It is a very unusual finding for the surveys that we do, two issues tend to dominate in most communities, and they tend to oscillate based on the economy, education and taxes, in tough economic years taxes pop up the highest, in better times it is education. Here you have development as an issue, and in some ways development becomes a problem for both taxes and education, with more children in the schools puts pressure on your school system, require infrastructure investment, and on the tax side growth on the business side helps in your tax money, but it concerns people because it threatens to alter the character of the community, and you see this as a theme here, growth and development patterns and pressures because people are not
universally negative to growth and development in this questionnaire but they are concerned. When asked for specifics about what types of development, we tend to see some very even splits right down the middle, about the mix of single homes and multiple family homes and in general, people say that the 75%/25% ratio in town is just about right. We asked people whether Avon has too much or not enough elderly housing, 31% feel the need for more. Chairman Hines questioned whether they were asked income levels. The Researcher reported no, people tend to answer in terms of their income levels. We asked people about how important it would be to encourage the Town to develop more moderately priced homes, and here we find 63% said that would be important for the Town. Generally you find that people are in favor of moderate and lower income development in the abstract, you do get less support as you get more specific as to what the development would be.
We gave people an unusually long question, we described their proposals for the idea of smaller lots to encourage preserving large blocks of open space, large lots as a mechanism for controlling development, and asked which they thought was best, 25% encourage smaller lots, 28% said encourage large lots, 41% said do not change anything the Town is doing, showing people are very happy with the way things are going with the Town. We asked about encouraging more commercial development, 15% said it was very important, 32% somewhat important, and 51% split 20% not too and 21% not all important. They are very supportive of open space, 71% said very important for the Town to be purchasing undeveloped land, 21% said somewhat important. Open space is one of those issues that people tend to say they theoretically
support it, now are they willing to pay for it? 71% of respondents said they would be willing to pay $50 per year more in taxes to support open space, of those who said yes, we then asked that group how about $100, for a non specific parcel just a range, 54% of the 71% said they would support the $100 range, you lose majority support at the $200 range, down to 59%.
We asked more detailed questions regarding zoning and development issues, and we asked them to agree or disagree. When asked whether Avon should encourage more business development in order to reduce the tax burden on homeowners, here we found 57% agreed and 41% disagreed, a majority but you still have a sizeable minority and the intensities are relatively close. The Town considered rezoning some existing undeveloped areas that are residentially zoned into commercial zoning, here we found a strong disagreement, they were not split on this issue, a near majority 49% strongly disagreed with another 22% somewhat disagreed. In terms of if there was going to be increased development and we did have people volunteer on a line of development, hypothetical, if there were what would they like to see, 25% said
retail, 53% said office developments, 7% manufacturing, 7% volunteered accommodation and 7% volunteered non development.
One of the interesting things he heard the Council talking about today, was Avon center, it is an interesting concept that people are not really sure where it is. The researcher reported you would be the 30% that said Route 44, 19% said Routes 10 and 44, 4% said 167 and 44, and then people were all over including Simsbury Commons, by Police Station, by the small shops. In terms of marketing a cohesive center, if that is an overall goal you are going to need to work on it. We then told people what the Town thought the center was and asked what they liked most. Again, a wide dispersion of responses here, 14% saying nothing, not much to like about the center being the #1 response, 13% convenient, 12% variety of shops, historic area at 9%, and a couple others at 9% but a wide dispersal. Not only
do they know where it is but it does not have an image as a result of that. They could name what they did not like about the proposed center with those streets, 38% saying traffic congestion, the 2nd highest response was 9% saying Avon does not have a center or a downtown, that was a tough issue for people to understand. We then followed up and asked how they would rate the physical appearance of the center after having told them where it was, their response is low to excellent or good but a soft good, as they really did not see with much of an image, and it is good but not a ringing endorsement of the overall image but it is not a negative evaluation, nothing stuck in their minds as being a problem.
The researcher reported that is an overall view of what we would find in terms of the issues facing the Town. Chairman Hines reported you did a great job in forming the questions, that was most important because your answers are somewhat the result of your good formulation of the questions. It will be very helpful to the Planning & Zoning Commission and Town Planner as they do their Comprehensive Plan update. The researcher reported one of the things to remember about this is, unless there is a significant event in Town, this data is going to have a long shelf life, if there were huge economic change, a large development put in somewhere, but absent those types of changes you are going to be able to deal with this data for a long time.
NEW BUSINESS
03/04-83 Review & Discussion: Publicity for Donation to Special Needs Fund
Mr. Carlson reported it is a very dangerous precedent to set, we should send a letter thanking her for her kind thoughts of the special needs fund, but the danger that we have is that we get into a competition amongst business people. If she would like to have a chance to donate that would be wonderful, and is certainly welcome but we should not endorse any advertisements.
On a motion made by Mr. Carlson, seconded by Mrs. Hornaday, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council should not endorse the request.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
03/04-84 Resolution: Polls to be open 6:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m., Wednesday, May 12, 2004 for Referendum
On a motion made by Mrs. Hornaday, seconded by Mr. Woodford, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council authorize the extension of the hours of the May 12, 2004 Budget Referendum from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
03/04-85 Resignation: Board of Assessment Appeals (Bill Cooper)
On a motion made by Mr. Woodford, seconded by Mr. Shea, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council accept with regret the resignation of William B. Cooper from the Board of Assessment Appeals.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
03/04-86 Appointment: Board of Assessment Appeals
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mrs. Hornaday, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council table this appointment to the May 6, 2004 meeting.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
03/04-87 Set Special Town Council Meeting for Signing of Town Meeting Call
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mr. Carlson, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council remove this item from the agenda.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
03/04-88 Approval of Dump Truck Bids (Subject to FY 04/05 Budget Approval)
Chairman Hines questioned whether there was any problem getting dealers to bid on trucks that would be ordered without commitment, pending budget approval. The Superintendent of Public Works reported absolutely not, in fact it was a very interesting bid process, last year he sent out for name brands and it did not open up or give us any greater response than previous years. We had three responses, Freightliner, Mack and International. Freightliner specifications did not meet our specs, they came in with a very light truck. He had conversations with all three of the proposed vendors, Freightliner acknowledged the fact they came in with a light truck, they feel that next year they might be able to spec the truck as stated with the weights and components. Mack and International came
in very close and their truck specifications are virtually identical. The difference in the two, the Mack chassis is a little more expensive than International, that led to the recommendation of himself and the Machinery & Equipment Superintendent to go with the International chassis. International presented their alternate bid on the body, a stainless steel Heil body, which will save the Town a substantial amount of money, not a brand of which he is familiar, but could be a good cost savings to the Town. All three dealerships bidding agreed to build a truck on spec with no obligation to the Town, if the money does not come through they would leave it on the lot and try to sell it retail. This is something we have never done before, but felt the need was extremely important as we had a rough year with snow equipment this year, he could not see us going through next year the same way. He reported the benefit would be that obviously the dealerships
have excellent working relationships with the body vendors, we are buying it as a complete unit. The only thing that the dealer is really putting on the line is the chassis, they are not going to know for 90 days, whether they will be trying to sell a chassis or an entire dump truck, Nutmeg International in Hartford is the proposed dealership with three dealerships in the State, Gabrielle Mack of Hartford is a huge multi-state dealership, and Freightliner of East Hartford is a huge dealership. There is no risk to the Town whatsoever, in the worst case scenario we walk away and still maintain a great relationship with the dealership.
On a motion made by Mrs. Hornaday, seconded by Mr. Carlson, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council authorize the purchase of a Navistar chassis with alternate stainless snow fighting equipment in amount $110,410.50 from Nutmeg International, subject to 2004/2005 budget approval, as recommended by the Superintendent of Public Works.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
03/04-89 Review and Discussion: Storm Water Management Plan
The Superintendent of Public Works reported he will simplify what is an ongoing project which is overseeing the implementation for Storm Water II Regulations which are mandated by the State of Connecticut DEP, through the Federal EPA regulations. This is not funded through either the State or through federal, there is a two part registration, we submitted the first Part A, the second part must be in the second week of July. There is a three or four step process of what the DEP is trying to accomplish, is for all the towns to acknowledge what they have in town, what their storm water systems consist of; pipes, outfalls and catch basins, they figure if we acknowledge them they will be maintained and we will know what needs to be maintained. The second function is education, they are striving for public
awareness in education, and the Town is going to have to play a big role in that with campaigns on our web page, flyers, postings, bringing the children in with the school system with projects, the Scouts who are tremendous and have been, and other community groups. The third item would be regulatory for the Town, we have to report to the DEP on an annual basis, report everything we do for that one year period which means how many outfalls we have cleaned, how many water samples we have taken, how many catch basins we have cleaned, how often we swept the streets. They are keeping an eye on that and we have to now log and report back to them these things. Chairman Hines reported the State has to do that as well. The Superintendent reported we are also mandated to inspect and register our inspections at building sites, sanitation control, so this is going to be a multi departmental task, on which we will report. We purchased software, he has the permit
90% written. He will keep the permit simple for the first step, because nobody really knows it is a brand new thing, such as street sweeping and our drainage collection. Some of the things we are going to have to do; have a public hearing before the final permit due date, then another public hearing on the submittal of the annual report sometime in December, 30 days prior to annual report. We will present what we have done on an annual basis, to make you aware of what we have done through the year.
Chairman Hines questioned whether the education program would go into the schools too. The Superintendent reported he has not had conversations with the schools, as far as a curriculum, but he is working with the schools right now, we are on our second year, where we have a recycling program with the high school where we collect old tennis shoes, it is a NIKE program where the children just took the program and ran with it, he gives them all the credit, we collect them and submit them and NIKE takes these old tennis shoes and grinds them up and makes running tracks out of them. The children get very involved in these sort of things, he is not planning on doing any sort of curriculum at this point in time. He asked the Eagle Scouts to have a civics program, they will develop a page on our website,
informing residents of some of the issues at hand, lawn watering, fertilizer, dog waste, all of these sort of things. It is really educational for our residents. He reported we will include it in our hazardous waste collection flyer, not to dump any waste down them, and that pamphlet is shown on the website, which is what the State is looking for us to do, and we are getting a good jump on things. There is a huge economic impact, we are dealing with it with our existing operational budget, he did not request any additional funds for next year, he can foresee coming to the Town Council at some point in time.
The Town Manager reported not to diminish the purpose and the goals of the program but you can get a feel for the magnitude and the complexity and the completeness of what they are mandating that we do, and the amount of extra time and effort and everything else that the Town has to put into this, strictly with the existing resources that we have, and these things continually come down the pike. If it is not GASBE 34, with the audit and the financial reporting, it is the storm water management, it just continues to come, and this is going to have, at least initially, until we get it up and going, substantial impact, some of it financial but more of it in terms of time allocation, it is taking away from something else that we have to add to it. There is virtually no money, we did get a software program through
CCM who is aggregating this for the State, but it is a major thing, another area that is related is the Acquifer Protection Regulations that are now coming down from the State which the Planning & Zoning Commission will be the agency for implementing that, that goes into a multi year effort of mapping acquifers at different levels and everything else that has to be done and a whole new set of regulations that is going to apply to any type of development that takes place in one of these acquifer areas. The Town Manager reported the Town Council and the Town have been very generous in adding the resources from a staff standpoint to handle these things, but it may mean down the road that we are going to have to add people or something, we do not know, we are trying to manage it internally and do what we are supposed to do to keep them updated and complete the job.
Mr. Shea reported you are anticipating that, is it just in reference to storm drains and acquifers, but could there be any regionalized effort, how difficult is it to work with Simsbury, Farmington and Canton on this kind of thing? The Superintendent reported it is not a difficult issue, right now, when we have it planned that is, we are going to be using interns and summer help to go out to add to the GPS by checking existing catch basins, shoot the plot of where it is, then he will have to use his personnel because we do not know where all of the outfalls are. Locating the grate is one thing it is right on the road, but determining where it is falling and where it comes out is a whole other thing and that is a concern of ours. We have to map all of the 15” outfalls by December 31st of
2006, and then it drops down to all of the 12” outfalls by December 31st of 2008. In the midst of this we are in the middle of mapping all the existing signs in Town, every single road sign, speed limit sign, any sign you see on the road, we are getting a GPS location for it and mapping it out, we just completed the initial input of road conditions for every road in Town for last year’s survey. We go out again, at some point in time, to put the condition of all of the roads on the GPS which already has all of the road names, and we will report to the Town Council on their conditions.
The Superintendent reported we have several basins that are clogged, not only because of sand applications, but erosion, and we are not aware of where they are, so this will be an education for the Town and it will help improve our infrastructure when we go out to maintain them, and know exactly what we have. A public hearing date needs to be set for the Storm Water II Regulations, as part of our mandated Storm Water Management Plan in order to be in compliance with the appropriate Federal and State regulations, which needs to be done prior to being able to submit them to the State, which should be in June, as the permit must be in by July 9th.
Mr. Woodford reported he would like a quick rundown on M. H. Rhodes property. The Superintendent reported we have pretty much quantified the contaminants in the soil, we had 220 tons. He hopes to have everything pulled out and cleaned up by the end of the summer. The wells will be in tact for testing purposes, the fence will come down, we are going to pave the new driveway and probably do some kind of dressing on the existing parking lot, we have already cut the new path for the trail from the new parking lot. The cleanup process is going to be pretty much a completed project with nothing but monitoring by the fall of this year. The Town Manager reported Ned Shanahan, Environmental Consultant, basically indicated from an overall standpoint that the results of all of his testing and work
pretty much were within the scope of what we had originally estimated, so we will probably not go over budget, at least at the moment. Apparently what we are going to recommend to you, and he needs to speak with the Superintendent of Public Works, but we will probably end up hiring a contractor to dispose of this material, unless we can get a letter from the DEP like we used to, for gas stations when they were moving the tanks and such as cover material at the landfill, but if we cannot do that, then it will be disposed of as environmental waste. He reported we could use it for some cover material, but we want to get a letter from the DEP first to have on file. When we finish the landfill bulky waste site, that all has to be capped over anyway with clean soil. The Consultant lists four or five recommendations in sequential order of what he is doing, none of the old test wells that were improved and none of the new test wells discovered anything abnormal, he seemed
to be pretty sure about it.
The Superintendent reported the M. H. Rhodes area he was going to leave in a natural state, not maintain it, let the grass grow up, it is just fine sand. Mr. Carlson reported the geology of it is that the sand goes all the way through it up to the High School athletic field. The Town Manager reported at all of the schools, Pine Grove and even the Senior Center we have nothing but problems trying to grow things. The Superintendent reported we are going to let it go natural, and put in some protection around the parking lot so that cars will not drive off it, it will be completed by the fall.
On a motion made by Mr. Woodford, seconded by Mr. Shea, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council schedule a public hearing for June 6, 2004 at 7:30 p.m.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
03/04-90 FY 02/03 Year End Transfers
Mr. Carlson reported questioned whether there is any way, to consolidate this process. He reported he was just trying to save some work, if there was a way to change the process so you would not have to go through that. The Finance Director reported as long as there is line item approval on the Town side of the budget you really need to see this much detail, and the auditors like to see it too. The Town Manager reported the computer is allowing us to integrate more of the systems, so that it builds up without having any separate incremental process. The Capital Annual Financial Report that you have, this is the first year under the GASBE 34 statement, and you will notice that it includes all of our infrastructure, all of the school buildings, roads and what not that we are talking about. Some
of the information about the condition of the roads that the Superintendent of Public Works talked about, eventually fits back into this report, because what it does is, it says you have an average life of 40 or 80 years on a road, and eventually you build up a document that shows what all of your assets and liabilities are. If you are not putting enough money into repaving your roads, it starts to show up through a depreciation, we are in essence moving towards formal accrual accounting. You saw it first with pensions, we have now seen it with infrastructure, the next area is the post retiree medical benefits, and all of these things will be documented as a liability, some of them in different ways, the pension fund through a net pension obligation, the GASBE 34 infrastructure through a depreciation of fixed assets or infrastructure and the third with the post retiree medical benefits which will be through an actuarial study and a liability.
On a motion made by Mrs. Hornaday, seconded by Mr. Woodford, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council approve the FY02/03 Year End Transfers as submitted, attached and made part of these minutes.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
The Town Manager reported as recommended by the Director of Finance, we are going to submit our quarterly reports to the Board of Education as well, so that they know what was going on in general with the Town side, and we basically felt that it was a good idea. What we wanted to do is to get the Board of Education’s quarterly reports and combine them into one document, and then go ahead and provide a consolidated quarterly financial report to the Town Council, Board of Education and the Board of Finance. There was a feeling that it would be a productive thing and the School Finance Director had no problem with it, so we are going to be trying it, and by the next meeting we will get a quarterly consolidated financial report.
TOWN MANAGER’S REPORT/MISCELLANEOUS
The Town Manager reported Mr. Simmons has applied for a grant to do some significant work at the farm near Fisher Meadows, part of it being in Farmington and part in Avon, most of the structural work is in Farmington and it relates to doing drainage work around the farm buildings, part of it has to do with a manure collection concrete lined place where it will be stored so that it would not leach into the ground. On the Avon side it calls for all of the fields to be turned into hay fields, instead of corn and that is why we are not seeing much plowing. He has about 110 head of cattle there and will continue to operate the farm, and has begun to do some work on the fences. It is a 90/10 grant and Mr. Simmons has to come up with the 10%, which was discussed at a meeting with Farmington and Avon, requiring
a letter from the Town indicating our support in order to be able to apply for it which he supplied to Mr. Simmons.
We also gave Mr. Simmons the five years notice that we would be interested in having him vacate Avon’s section, which is preparatory to us doing something with those fields if we want to, and more in line with the Parks and Recreation Committee’s long range master plan. He reported he will have the Committee give the Council a status report, and they may be looking for funding for it as part of the capital improvement program.
The Town Manager reported the second thing is that we received a letter from Kathy Eagen, Farmington Town Manager, on the Volunteer Fire Department reciprocity agreement, so we will be moving ahead with that. We now have Simsbury and Farmington and Avon but not Canton, but there are Harwinton Bristol, and one or two others that are outside the area. The Town Attorney has come up with a methodology of giving an ‘award’ so that we can go ahead and provide them with their stipend in lieu of the tax abatement. We will be moving ahead with that to get this money to these out of town people and working with Farmington on theirs. Chairman Hines reported last month he met with a person on Senator Dodd’s staff and also Congressman Larson, and this was brought on the agenda for
their comments, they said they had full support from Dodd, Lieberman, Larson, and Nancy Johnson has been supportive, and they are doing everything they can to try to get us the tax break for firefighters.
The Town Manager reported we continue to work on our economic development program with Reflexite by providing them information. He met with people from Reflexite and the Water Company, to get that connection in, so they are now working on some figures to give to them a possible water and utility aspect of it. He reported we had a meeting with Sandra Johnson of the Growth Council who is very good at bringing together the state people, she is our contact person there and works with him in terms of things here in Avon. We met with the State people, there are not very many programs available at the State level, and virtually little money. The State did perk up when Reflexite mentioned that they were looking at four locations and New Britain was one, and since New Britain is a distressed city, suddenly
money becomes available to do something, and since Avon is not a distressed area it might not be available, but Reflexite will decide based upon what they feel is best for the company overall in terms of this expansion if they move ahead with it.
The Town Manager reported we have not moved ahead on the Sprint Tower. They need a written document of concurrence that the Town is comfortable with the plan, which has gone to the Planning & Zoning Commission, then they will take the letter stating their plan is acceptable to us and show that to the Siting Council in Hartford, as further proof that they, Sprint, have touched base with the Town, as the property owner, and that we are in concurrence with it. So if any opposition shows up at the Siting Council, they can refer to the letter. In June or the latest July we are going to have to hold a public hearing, because we are in essence leasing something, and under the Charter that is considered to be the giving of an interest in property. We have limited control because it is our property but
we do not have control from the standpoint of the site, the State decides where it goes, just like a utility, but we do get rent for the lease and we can use the site which is why we got into this in the first place to help our police and fire calls.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: Litigation/Negotiations
On a motion made by Mr. Woodford, seconded by Mr. Shea, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council go into Executive session at 9:55 p.m. to discuss negotiations.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
On a motion made by Mr. Woodford, seconded by Mr. Shea, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council come out of Executive Session at 10:50 p.m.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Attest:
Caroline B. LaMonica
Town Clerk
| |
