TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
MINUTES
TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 8, 2007
SOUTH WINDSOR TOWN HALL TIME: 7:00 P.M.
1. Call Meeting to Order
Mayor Streeter called the meeting to order at
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Mayor Matthew Streeter
Councillor Edward Havens
Councillor Kevin McCann
Councillor Tim Moriarty
Councillor John Pelkey
Councillor Cary Prague
Councillor Keith Yagaloff
Members Absent Deputy Mayor Thomas Delnicki
Councillor Deborah Fine
Also Present: Town Manager Matthew Galligan
Town Atty. Duncan Forsyth, Halloran & Sage
3. Public Participation - None
4. Special Business
A. Resolution Authorizing the Town Manager to Submit a Funding Request for up to $750,000 to the CRCOG Transportation Committee for Pavement Rehabilitation of Sand Hill Road
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration has made funds available to the States for such purposes as road improvements; highway and transit safety; and traffic management and control; and
(Resolution Continued on Next Page)
4. A. (Continued)
WHEREAS, The Capitol Region Council of Governments has solicited municipal projects in order to distribute about $16,000,000 in Federal allocation available for project funding through the Surface Transportation Program; and,
WHEREAS, Sand Hill Road is eligible for funding under this program and is structurally in very poor condition;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the South Windsor Town Council hereby authorizes Town Manager Matthew B. Galligan to submit a funding request up to the amount of $750,000, to the CRCOG Transportation Committee for Pavement Rehabilitation of Sand Hill Road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, should funding for said Plan be approved, the South Windsor Town Council will fund the design of this project and will fund the required 20% match, or $150,000, as required by project guidelines.
Was made by: Councillor Prague
Seconded by: Mayor Streeter
Councillor Pelkey, referring to the last paragraph of this Resolution, asked Atty. Forsyth for clarification regarding its intent. The Councillor said he felt the wording was “binding a future Council to fund this project, tonight.” He felt this was contrary to the Town’s Charter; and that the words “will fund the required 20% match, or $150,000, as required by project guidelines” was binding a future Council unless money was put aside to “do this project now.”
Town Manager Galligan pointed out that projects such as the Clark Street/Pleasant Valley Road project (recently completed) was funded by the Town for $300,000; and it was the Manager’s opinion that, in that instance, it did not bind any future Council to funding. Councillor Pelkey interrupted to emphasize that he had asked the Town Attorney for a legal opinion. Mr. Galligan then stated that the Town Attorney would need time to “go through the Charter” before providing this opinion.
Councillor Yagaloff, too, questioned the responsibility of future Councils to meet funding obligations approved by this Council.
4. A. (Continued)
The Town Manager pointed out that, at this time, the Town did not know if it would get any of these Grants—that, because of the competition among the 39 Towns for these funds, it could take as long as 6 months to a year-and-a half before the Town knew which Grants, if any, it might get. It would be following this process and “final design” of the project” that the Town would be faced with a decision to fund the project (for instance) in the year 2010, 2011, or 2012. It would be at that time that the Town would have to withdraw from the “program” if it chose not to fund the project.
Mr. Galligan warned of consequences resulting from withdrawing from this program too many times. CRCOG, he said, could disallow the Town from being part of the program. He added that South Windsor ran into that situation with a proposed Kelly Road project that the Town decided not to do. In that case, however, South Windsor was able to switch the funds over to the I-291/Rt. 30 interchange.
Councillor Moriarty then proposed an Amendment (bold print) changing the initial wording of the final paragraph, as follows:
“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that should funding for said Plan be approved and the South Windsor Town Council accepts such funds, the South Windsor Town Council would fund the design of this project……..and will fund the required 20% match, or $150,000, as required by project guidelines.
Mayor Streeter seconded the Amendment. Councillor Pelkey requested a “written” version of the Amendment proposed by Councillor Moriarty because of its length.
Atty. Forsyth, in answer to Councillor Pelkey’s question responded that—merely from the reading of the paragraph—would be of the opinion that it would bind future Councils. However, he stressed that he has had no opportunity to review the Town Charter. Councillor Pelkey requested that Atty. Forsyth “continue to search the Charter for that information.”
A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the question of whether or not future Councils would be bound by this Council’s decisions regarding funding of specific projects—with the Town Manager pointing out that many decisions, such as the acceptance of the terms of Union Contracts including their salary schedules, bound future Council’s to specific funding.
4. A. (Continued)
Mayor Streeter advised that it would be prudent, in any case, to “earmark $250,000 to be reserved” to cover the Town’s 10% portion of at least one of these projects—two being $250,000; and one being $150,000.
Councillor McCann suggested that there were various mechanisms for setting money aside; and suggested that this $250,000 could be set aside in the “Capital Projects” Account and, thus, could be “rolled over from year to year.” It was his opinion that it was “unnecessary to change the wording of that last paragraph.” He, too, had questions associated with the last paragraph of this Resolution; and Mr. Galligan asked the Town Engineer to come forward to answer them.
Councillor Havens said he had no problem with this Resolution; and the Town should not endanger this particular project because of “things that may, or may not, happen.”
Following the distribution of Councillor Moriarty’s proposed Amendment, in writing, Mayor Streeter called for a vote on the Amendment. The Amendment failed 5 Nays to 2 Ayes, on a Roll Call vote, as follows:
Councillor McCann - No
Councillor Havens - No
Councillor Moriarty - Yes
Councillor Pelkey - No
Councillor Prague - No
Councilor Yagaloff - No
Mayor Streeter - Yes
Councillor Pelkey then proposed an Amendment changing the last paragraph of the Resolution to read as follows:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the South Windsor Town Council will fund the design of this project; and will fund the required 20% match, or $150,000 as required by project guidelines by setting aside said funds from the Fiscal 2005/2006 Budget.
It was seconded by Councillor Yagaloff. Following discussions on the proposed Amendment by Councillor Pelkey, Mayor Streeter called for a vote on this Amendment. It was defeated, 5 Nays to 2 Ayes, on a Roll Call vote, as follows:
4. A. (Continued)
Councillor McCann - No
Councillor Havens - No
Councillor Moriarty - No
Councillor Pelkey - Yes
Councillor Prague - No
Councilor Yagaloff - Yes
Mayor Streeter - No
Between Amendments, there was more discussion regarding the “binding of future Councils to funding these projects”—whether this was the case, or whether it was not.
Councillor Prague proposed an Amendment to the last paragraph, as follows
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that should funding for said Plan be approved, the design cost of this project and the required 20% match, or $150,000, as required by the project guidelines, will be the responsibility of the Town of South Windsor.
The Motion to Amend was seconded by Councillor McCann, Mayor Streeter called for a vote on the proposed Amendment. It was approved 5 Ayes to 2 Nays, on a Roll Call vote, as follows:
Councillor McCann - Yes
Councillor Havens - Yes
Councillor Moriarty - Yes
Councillor Pelkey - No
Councillor Prague - Yes
Councilor Yagaloff - No
Mayor Streeter - Yes
Mayor Streeter then called for a vote on the Amended Resolution. The Amended Resolution was approved, 6 Ayes to 1 Nay, on a Roll Call vote, as follows:
Councillor McCann - Yes
Councillor Havens - Yes
Councillor Moriarty - Yes
Councillor Pelkey - No
Councillor Prague - Yes
Councilor Yagaloff - Yes
Mayor Streeter - Yes
4. Special Business (Continued)
B. Resolution Authorizing the Town Manager to Submit a Funding Request for up to $2,500,000 to the CRCOG Transportation Committee for Reconstruction of a Portion of Pleasant Valley Road from Ellington Road to Approximately Northview Drive
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration has made funds available to the States for such purposes as road improvements; highway and transit safety; and traffic management and control; and
WHEREAS, The Capitol Region Council of Governments has solicited municipal projects in order to distribute about $16,000,000 in Federal allocation available for project funding through the Surface Transportation Program; and,
WHEREAS, Pleasant Valley Road is eligible for funding under this program, is structurally in very poor condition, has an insufficient drainage system and,
WHEREAS, the Town has met with residents of Pleasant Valley Road from the area of Ellington Road to Northview Drive to discuss this project and the residents have expressed their support of the proposed reconstruction project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the South Windsor Town Council hereby authorizes Town Manager Matthew B. Galligan to submit a funding request up to the amount of $2,500,000, to the CRCOG Transportation Committee for reconstruction of a portion of Pleasant Valley Road from Ellington Road to approximately Northview Drive.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, should funding for said Plan be approved, the South Windsor Town Council will provide the required 10% match, or $250,000, as required by funding guidelines.
Was made by: Councillor Havens
Seconded by: Councillor McCann
4. B. (Continued)
Councillor McCann said he felt the last paragraph of this Resolution should be Amended to read the same as the Amended last paragraph of Resolution 4.A., i.e., as follows:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that should funding for said Plan be approved, the design cost of this project and the required 10% match, or $250,000, as required by the project guidelines, will be the responsibility of the Town of South Windsor.
Councillor Prague seconded the Motion. Town Engineer Jeff Doolittle then rose to inform the Councillors that the “funding guidelines for these types of projects are slightly different—therefore, the Amendment should not read exactly the same.” He said that the “design costs” do not need to be separated out—they’re included in the funding.
Councillor McCann then withdrew his Amendment; and Councillor Prague withdrew his “second.” Councillor McCann then proposed a second Amendment to the last paragraph to read as follows:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that should funding for said Plan be approved, the required 10% match, or $250,000, as required by the project guidelines, will be the responsibility of the Town of South Windsor.
Councillor Moriarty seconded the Motion. Councillor Pelkey then formally requested that the Town Attorney provide a “written ruling” on the validity of what the Town Council is doing on all three of the projects being proposed this evening. He added that he would not be supporting the proposed projects because of his not having received a formal legal opinion from the Town Attorney regarding the present and future Councils’ funding responsibilities for these projects.
Mayor Streeter then called for a vote on the Amendment. It was approved 5 Ayes to 2 Nays, on a Roll Call vote, as follows:
Councillor McCann - Yes
Councillor Havens - Yes
Councillor Moriarty - Yes
Councillor Pelkey - No
Councillor Prague - Yes
Councilor Yagaloff - No
Mayor Streeter - Yes
4. B. (Continued)
Mayor Streeter then called for a vote on the Amended Resolution 4.B. It was approved 6 Ayes to 1 Nay, on a Roll Call vote, as follows:
Councillor McCann - Yes
Councillor Havens - Yes
Councillor Moriarty - Yes
Councillor Pelkey - No
Councillor Prague - Yes
Councilor Yagaloff - Yes
Mayor Streeter - Yes
C. Resolution Authorizing the Town Manager to Submit a Funding Request for up to $2,500,000 to the CRCOG Transportation Committee for Reconstruction of a Portion of Avery Street from Kelly Road to Evans Crossing
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration has made funds available to the States for such purposes as road improvements; highway and transit safety; and traffic management and control; and
WHEREAS, The Capitol Region Council of Governments has solicited municipal projects in order to distribute about $16,000,000 in Federal allocation available for project funding through the Surface Transportation Program; and,
WHEREAS, Sand Hill Road is eligible for funding under this program and is structurally in very poor condition;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the South Windsor Town Council hereby authorizes Town Manager Matthew B. Galligan to submit a funding request up to the amount of $750,000, to the CRCOG Transportation Committee for Pavement Rehabilitation of Sand Hill Road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, should funding for said Plan be approved, the South Windsor Town Council will fund the design of this project and will fund the required 20% match, or $150,000, as required by project guidelines.
4. C. (Continued)
Was made by: Mayor Streeter
Seconded by: Councillor Moriarty
Before voting on the Resolution, Town Engineer Jeff Doolittle requested time to make a point of clarification on Avery Street. He said that following their work on possible construction and cost estimate numbers for Avery Street, the Engineering Division felt ”it is more important to take care of the drainage problems on Avery Street—which are at the intersection of Avery/Beelzebub/Woodland—and to realign the intersection of Beelzebub and Avery Street and Woodland, than to continue the project as far as they can.”
With that in mind, he continued, and looking at project costs estimates of $2.5 million, the Engineering Division believes it can only get “a little bit farther north than Beelzebub with the money allocated for this project”--if the aforementioned drainage and alignment work is done at that intersection. Again, according to Mr. Doolittle, Engineering felt it was more important to do a shorter stretch of road (from Kelly Road to just north of Beelzebub) and “take care of those two problems—than to try to continue as far up Avery Street as we can”—i.e., to Evans Crossing.
Mayor Streeter then proposed to Amend the fourth paragraph of the Resolution by ending it as follows:
……..….for construction of a portion of Avery Street from Kelly Road to just north of Beelzebub Road.
The Amendment was seconded by Councillor McCann; and was approved, unanimously.
At this point, Mayor Streeter asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to come forward to comment on the Amended Resolution 4.C.
Coming forward to speak was Mr. Richard Kopp, 759 Avery Street, who said he was confused about the reasons associated with applying for these STP Funds. At the last meeting, according to Mr. Kopp, the purpose for applying for the Grant was because the street needed “widening” in certain areas; and, tonight, he said, the reason given was because the road was in need of repair and would have to be fixed “in 10 years.” He speculated that it could be a “misappropriation of funds.”
4. C. (Continued)
Mr. Kopp stated that he “had heard nothing tonight that is going to fix the problems of Avery Street—and the principal problems on Avery Street is speed. He requested “speed bumps” on Avery Street—to not only slow drivers down; but to discourage out-of-towners from using Avery Street as a shortcut to I-84 and the Mall.
Next to speak was Katherine Hale, 54 Orchard Hill Drive, who has lived in the area for about 20 years. She, too, felt that “speed” was the major problem; and using the statistics offered by Sgt. Bond, she calculated that “at least 15% of the drivers using that street “are going one and one-half times the speed limit.” Ms. Hale felt that at least the partial “fix” for that problem was to put some type of traffic signal at the corner of Kelly Road and Avery Street—and suggested a full traffic light morning and evening rush hours. She also felt that the realignment of Beelzebub and Woodland was a “waste of money” because it was her opinion that this “misalignment” actually caused drivers to slow down at that intersection. Fixing the drainage in
this area, however, she felt was a priority.
Monique Parquette, 56 Cornerstone Drive, and one who has been “very involved in the building of the new Avery Street Church,” asked how much work would be done on Beelzebub Road inn conjunction with the proposed realignment. Jeff Doolittle, referring to the Plan, said that the work would have to commence “400 feet to 450 feet back on Beelzebub in order to “smoothly blend it back in with the existing road and line it up with Woodland. However, after looking at the current configuration of Avery Street Church, he did not believe this construction would affect the Church at all.
Ms Parquette echoed the idea presented by Katherine Hale of having a traffic light at Kelly Road and Avery Street.
Ms. Annie Rentz, 6 Evans Crossing, disagreed with the idea of a traffic light at Avery Street and Kelly Road. It was her opinion that this would turn a “residential road” into a “route just like Oakland Road, etc.” However, she did agree that the “misalignment” of Woodland with Beelzebub slowed drivers down.
Steve Lytle, 239 Avery Street, a 29-year resident of Avery Street. He said he has seen the traffic increase “obscenely!” He commented on the difficulty of access and egress from his driveway—particularly in light of the average “speed” of the motorists. Although agreeing with the proposed drainage word; Mr. Lytle pleaded that no widening of the road, or installation of sidewalks, be contemplated.
4. C. (Continued)
Lou Baker, 620 Avery Street, said he is one of the ones that will be affected by this “frontage” change. He asked where the drainage pipes would be run; and agreed that the road needed repair and curbs. He was against a traffic light at Kelley Road because he felt no one would be able to get out of their driveways because of backed-up traffic due to the light.
Bill Paquette, 220 Avery Street, a 50-year resident of Avery Street, the problem as he saw it was the lure of the money; however, he added, the problem on Avery Street was not its “width;” but was “controlling the traffic flow.”
Councillor Yagaloff expressed his concern that there was not a “consensus” on what should be done on Avery Street. He felt more discussion was necessary.
Councillor Yagaloff expressed his concern that there was not a “consensus” on what should be done on Avery Street. He felt more discussion was necessary; however, he would be supporting the submission of an Application for this project.
Speaking on behalf of Deputy Mayor Delnicki in his absence, Councillor Prague said that, originally, it was the Deputy Mayor’s intent to vote against this project—the reason being that “no planning had been done.” He agreed that the Grant should be applied for; however, he felt that definitive plans should have been drawn up indicating exactly what repair work, etc., is to be done. This, he felt, was not decided, in a timely fashion, in the case of Avery Street.
Councilor Havens, commenting on Resolutions 4. B. and 4. C. said that sometimes, it is easier to vote on a $1 million budget than to vote on projects that affect our residents and those who have motored in the areas being discussed. He said he always “personally feels that I am offending each one when I vote one way or another on a Resolution such as this.”
However, Councillor Havens reminded the Council and those listening that the Council would be derelict in its duty if it didn’t take advantage of these two Resolutions. He said he would be supporting them; and everyone should recognize the need for the repairs on Avery Street. He concluded his remarks by stating that he felt Avery Street was “a dangerous road.”
Mayor Streeter, without reiterating his remarks of a previous meeting on this subject, again lent his support to the Resolutions. He did, however, suggest that the Town Manager sit down with the Chief of Police to develop some sort of Plan that would
4. C. (Continued)
include input from the neighbors, and neighboring communities, on what to do about Avery Street and, particularly, the issue of “speed.” He noted that Avery Street is a “busier road than Route 74; and warned the residents that he would be availing himself of the offers of several of tonight’s speakers to stand in their driveways and assess the high volume of traffic and the excessive speeds of the traveling public on that street.
Town Manager Galligan said that he and Chief Tyler had already and they were attempting to come up with a recourse as to what can be done about the speed of the vehicles using Avery Street. He said a plan should be developed shortly. Also, with regard to traffic calming they are looking at “raised intersections” similar to what was done at Evergreen Walk. However, these things are not funded.
Councillor Pelkey, pointing out that he was the dissenting vote on this Resolution, said he felt he was elected to office to represent the citizens of South Windsor. In this case, Councillor Pelkey felt that the majority of those speaking to this Resolution at both recent meetings on the subject of the STP Grants were against this project. Although there were many compelling reasons to vote for this project, Councillor Pelkey continued to feel that one of the overall problems in this type of project is the general public is not educated in the overall scheme, or plan, for the Town with regard to its roads. A “Master Plan” for South Windsor’s roads is needed, he said.
Richard Kopp came forward to sum up a general feeling that “you can’t make a decision if you don’t know what to make a decision on.” He speculated that there were no residents present who were opposed to fixing “anything” on Avery Street. What they’re opposed to is “widening it for the sake of widening it when it is not necessary.”
Mayor Streeter then called for a vote on the Amended Resolution. It was approved 6 Ayes to 1 Nay, on a Roll Call vote, as follows:
Councillor McCann - Yes
Councillor Havens - Yes
Councillor Moriarty - Yes
Councillor Pelkey - No
Councillor Prague - Yes
Councilor Yagaloff - Yes
Mayor Streeter - Yes
4. Special Business (Continued)
D. Resolution Authorizing South Windsor Fire Marshal Walter Summer to Apply to “FEMA” for a 2006 Fire Prevention and Safety Grant
BE IT RESOLVED that the South Windsor Town Council hereby authorizes Fire Marshal Walter Summers to apply for a “2006 Fire Prevention and Safety Grant” from the Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA), said Grant to be for approximately $185,000.
Was made by: Councillor Pelkey
Seconded by: Councillor Yagaloff
There was a brief discussion regarding some Councillors’ concerns with the hiring of a temporary second Fire Marshal for one year; with FEMA, itself; the “non-voluntary” nature of the inspections—and associated “invasion of privacy” accusations.
Councillor Prague moved to Amend the Resolution (at the Fire Marshal’s request) to reflect an amount of $187,000 (rather than :$185,000); seconded by Councillor Pelkey. The Motion was approved, unanimously.
The Mayor then called for a vote on the Amended Resolution. It was approved, unanimously.
5. Executive Session
Councillor McCann moved to go into Executive Session to discuss potential economic development issues and the possible purchase of #491 King Street property. It was seconded by Councillor Pelkey; and approved, unanimously.
6. Adjournment
The Meeting was adjourned immediately following the conclusion of the Executive Session.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia R. Brown
Clerk of the Council
| 
