MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL & WPC AUTHORITY
DECEMBER 16, 2002
A REGULAR MEETING of the City Council & WPC Authority
was held on Monday, December 16, 2002, in the Council Chambers.
Attending was Mayor Owen J. Quinn, Jr., City Council member’s Anne L. Ruwet, Paul F. Samele, Jr., Marie P. Soliani, David M. Bascetta, Richard E. Dalla Valle, and James D. Reginatto, Corp. Counsel Albert Vasko, and City Engineer Edward Fabbri.
Mayor Quinn called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m.
MINUTES #040
On a motion by Councilor Bascetta, seconded by Councilor Reginatto, the Council voted unanimously to accept the minutes of the informational meeting held September 30, 2002.
On a motion by Councilor Bascetta, seconded by Councilor Soliani, the Council voted unanimously to accept the minutes of the regular meeting held October 21, 2002.
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC #060
On a motion by Councilor Reginatto, seconded by Councilor Soliani, the Council voted unanimously to open the meeting to the public.
Thomas Scoville, 356 Westside Lane, spoke on behalf of a group of Torrington citizens who attended a number of meetings and evaluated a plan put forth by Cugno Associates, regarding the revitalization of downtown Torrington. Although the plan had much merit, the group opposed several things. In particular, the area north of Church Street / Water Street intersection, the relocation of existing businesses and construction of part of the development in that area, and the focus of the development on top of Water Street, especially for the commercial development, because they felt Water Street could not handle the volume of traffic this plan would create. The group also felt the city should look at areas adjacent to downtown which is not presently economically viable where the state dollar could be put
to better use to revitalize and compliment our existing downtown.
Mr. Scoville noted that the group hammered out a plan in which they hoped the focus would be placed on the Stone Container property since it was a nine to ten-acre site that fronted on Route 202, a main artery, rather than a secondary street such as Water Street. It also included building a road through the present Stop & Shop Plaza and creating structures in that area to alleviate much of the traffic on Water Street and to tie into the top of Water Street for residential and small office rather than commercial purposes. The group would also look at the feasibility of reconfiguring the state bridge downtown, aligning East Main Street with Route 202, and make it more pedestrian friendly.
The group favored preserving the more significantly historic buildings rather than removing them. In addition, the group was concerned that the project may favor one developer and they hoped to see the possibility of incorporating more than one.
Mr. Scoville pointed out that the plan had gone before the Economic Development Commission and the Planning & Zoning Commission, and remained open enough to incorporate what this group was advocating. The group recommended the Council’s approval of the process to continue with the downtown conceptual plan as presented because it did incorporate what they wanted accomplished. The group will continue to be active in observing the plan and advocating the items mentioned.
Mayor Quinn told Mr. Scoville that his group’s hard work and effort should be rewarded by keeping them as part of the process. He said “To my extent, and I’m sure, backed by the City Council, we’ll see that your participation is asked for and included as we go forward.”
John Williams, 140 Homestead Road, urged the Council to move forward with the master plan for downtown Torrington. Without further development in Torrington, the tax burden would fall upon its residents.
TORRINGTON HIGH SCHOOL ROOF REPAIRS #420
Councilor Bascetta made a motion to accept the following recommendations from the Board of Education in regard to the Torrington High School Roof Repairs: (Tabled on 12/2/02.)
1) To establish a building committee of one person consisting of Hugh Murphy, Business Services Administrator, authorized to develop the schematic drawings and specifications for school building grants, and
2) To authorize the Board of Education to submit to the State Department of Education Form ED049.
Councilor Samele seconded the motion.
During discussion, Hugh Murphy, Business Services Administrator of Torrington Public Schools, joined by Joseph Alicata, architect for the school roof project, explained the request put forth before the City Council.
Mr. Murphy noted that the roof was 19 years old and needed to be replaced. The school board built $652,500.00 into their capital project’s plan for this year and a total of $2,689,000.00 over a four-year period. The present replacement would strip off the membrane, replace decking, and install new curbing and flashing. The estimated reimbursement from the state will be $456,000.00, or 70% of the $652,500.00. They will have to file for another project number next year and if the reimbursement rate is the same, at 70%, approximately the same amount will be needed in the subsequent years.
Mr. Alicata stated that the project will be multi phase, taking the worst areas first, which are probably the industrial wing or building B. The overall area is approximately 120,000 square feet. He further explained that part of the proposal was to completely tear off the existing roof, which was a rubber membrane, and install a modified bituminous roof, which is a multi layered roofing system that will have a twenty to thirty-year warrantee.
Mr. Murphy distributed the schematics to the Council and Mr. Alicata explained the roof’s construction. He stated that it would be layered with felt plies and asphalt and covered with a stone ballast. Mr. Alicata felt this system was superior over a rubber membrane because rubber membranes only had one sheet of rubber. He noted that they had been successful with a similar system installed at the East School four or five years ago.
Mr. Alicata stated that the maximum warrantee was for thirty years. Members of the Board of Education talked about a twenty or thirty year warrantee and decided the thirty-year warrantee would give the school system a bit more assurance. As part of the process, Mr. Alicata would make certain that the manufacturer would accompany him on a daily basis to inspect the ongoing work. He stated those portions of the roof prone to leakage over the years, like skylights, would be removed.
Councilor Dalla Valle inquired how a four-year staggered project would affect the warrantee.
Mr. Alicata indicated that each portion would be treated as a separate entity.
It was noted on the key plan that the “new area” had been roofed two years ago as part of the addition.
Councilor Soliani expressed her concern over the installation of roofs overall, fearing that warrantees can be useless if companies go out of business. She asked “What kind of assurance can we have that this company that we do hire will do an adequate job so that this Council doesn’t have to be faced with people coming in and saying that the roof leaks and my children are sick?”
Mr. Murphy stated that some of the things they look at before selecting a vendor, are similar projects they’ve done within the last five years, and from that they get references which they check. They also look at their general reputation and the general reputation of their products. The architect has some information on how products stand up and the life of roofs previously installed have been.
Mr. Alicata stated that they would also look for the warrantee to be backed by the manufacturer and not just the contractor, whereby a manufacturer was less likely to go out of business.
Councilor Bascetta inquired how they arrived at the $2,689,000.00 figure. He asked “Is the magnitude of the project the fact that the High School ran into some problems with budget numbers versus actual numbers on the job and that project turned out to be a bit of a problem. If we all remember, we didn’t have enough money in the project to do what we wanted to do. That’s what I’m asking, where are these bids coming from? Where these numbers are coming from so when it goes out to bid, if it comes back to bid at over $3 million, is that a possibility?”
Mr. Murphy indicated that they came up with that number to put in the budget by looking at what it cost them to do the roof on East School, and then applied inflation factors for subsequent years.
VOTE #720
Without further discussion, the board voted unanimously to accept the recommendations from the Board of Education in regard to the Torrington High School Roof Repairs to establish a building committee of one person consisting of Hugh Murphy, Business Services Administrator, authorized to develop the schematic drawings and specifications for school building grants, and to authorize the Board of Education to submit to the State Department of Education Form ED049.
TORRINGTON CHILD CARE CENTER #740
On a motion by Councilor Ruwet, seconded by Councilor Reginatto, the Council voted unanimously to authorize Mayor Quinn to execute the year 2003 contract for the Torrington Child Care Center in the amount expected to be $159,276.00 and adopt the Resolution in regard to the contract.
RESOLUTION:
I, Joseph L. Quartiero, Secretary for the Board of Councilmen, a Connecticut corporation (the “Contractor”) do hereby certify that the following is a true and correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted at a meeting of the Board of Councilmen, of the Contractor duly held and convened on Monday, December 16, 2002, at which meeting a duly constituted quorum of the Board of Councilmen was present and acting throughout and that such resolution has not been modified, rescinded, or revoked, and is at present in full force and effect:
RESOLVED, that the Mayor, Owen J. Quinn, Jr., is empowered to enter into or amend contractual instruments in the name and on behalf of the Board of Councilmen with the Department of Social Services of the State of Connecticut for a Child Day Care Program, and to affix the corporate seal.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has affixed his signature and the corporate seal of the Contractor this 17th day of December 2002.
Joseph L. Quartiero, CCMC, CTC
City Clerk, Torrington, Ct.
FRIAR ASSOCIATES #820
On a motion by Councilor Bascetta, seconded by Councilor Ruwet, the Council voted unanimously to authorize the payment of $15,050.00 from Torringford School Building Fund #0314 to Friar Associates for professional services rendered from November 1, 2002 to November 30, 2002.
FIRE HEADQUARTERS’ ROOF BID #850
On a motion by Councilor Bascetta, seconded by Councilor Reginatto, the Council voted 5-1 to accept the Purchasing Agent’s recommendation to award the Fire Headquarters Roof Bid to the lowest bidder, Diamond, Inc. of Waterbury, Ct. Councilor Dalla Valle opposed the motion on the general principal based upon a letter received by the City from Attorney Joseph Yamin, on behalf of Diamond, Inc., strongly urging the Council to vote in favor of the low bidder.
W. W. MANCHESTER #880
On a motion by Councilor Dalla Valle, seconded by Councilor Bascetta, the board voted unanimously to authorize the payment of $101,507.50 from Bond Fund #302 to W. W. Manchester Co., Inc. in regard to the East Main Street sanitary sewer installation project.
TORRINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT #940
On a motion by Councilor Ruwet, seconded by Councilor Samele, the board voted unanimously to authorize the payment of $271.66 from the Sanitary Sewer Capital Improvement Fund #490 to the Torrington Police Department in regard to the sanitary sewer repairs at High Street and Litchfield Street and referred it to the Board of Finance.
TRUMBULL CONSTRUCTION, INC. #960
On a motion by Councilor Dalla Valle, seconded by Councilor Ruwet, the board voted unanimously to authorize the payment of $259,778.18 from Bond Fund #302 to Trumbull Construction Co., Inc. in regard to the sanitary sewer improvements - Torrington Phase III Sewers, Contract 4 - Highland Avenue.
During discussion, the Council allowed Jamie Minor to inquire about the condition of Highland Avenue.
City Engineer Edward Fabbri indicated that Trumbull Const. Co. had completed the main sewer line going all the way up Highland. Approximately half of the sewer laterals still have to be connected to the houses in the spring. The Water Company has already upgraded their water lines in the area. Yankee Gas will then replace their existing seventy year old gas mains. Once that’s done, the city will overlay the entire road.
TABLED: SEWER, TECHNOLOGY PARK DRIVE & TORRINGFORD STREET #1100
Corp. Counsel Vasko asked that this item be tabled for a public hearing.
On a motion by Councilor Bascetta, seconded by Councilor Ruwet, the WPCA voted unanimously to table, until a public hearing could be scheduled, the City Engineer’s request to allow the extension of a public sanitary sewer beginning at the intersection of Technology Park Drive and Torringford Street extending 967 feet along the west side of Torringford Street. Proposed line will serve lots adjacent to Torringford Street. All work associated with this project would be funded by the owner, as part of a Developer’s Agreement with the WPCA.
A public hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, January 21, 2003 at 7:00 p.m.
REIMBURSEMENT: CHARLES & GAIL OLSEN #1200
On a motion by Councilor Bascetta, seconded by Councilor Ruwet, the board voted unanimously to approve the City Engineer’s request for the reimbursement of a $2,500.00 sewer connection fee and waive any future sewer construction assessment fee to Charles and Gail Olsen, 191 Homestead Road, if the existing sanitary sewer line is extended from Pondside Lane to Homestead Road, in exchange for a temporary construction easement and a permanent sanitary sewer easement through their property, and referred it to the Board of Finance.
Mr. Fabbri indicated that it was possible for other homes located on Homestead Road to have similar septic problems in the future, and the easement would provide a way to interconnect into Pondside for the remainder of the homes on Homestead.
The reimbursement of the $2,500.00 sewer connection fee served as an incentive for the Olsen’s to allow the city to extend the sewer through their his property in order to connect homes on Homestead in the future, and the waiving of any future sewer construction assessment fee would eliminate the possibility of Mr. Olsen being re-assessed as an abutter to the sewer line.
THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR #1350
On a motion by Councilor Reginatto, seconded by Councilor Bascetta, the Council voted unanimously to accept the recommendation from the Public Works Director to authorize the payment of $4,460.00 from Contingency to ThyssenKrupp Elevator to completely replace the elevator doors in City Hall with new stainless steel doors and referred it to the Board of Finance.
Mayor Quinn stated that Small Cities’ funding could be explored.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT REPORT #1480
On a motion by Councilor Ruwet, seconded by Councilor Bascetta, the Council voted unanimously to accept the Building Department Report for November 2002.
STREET LIGHT RECOMMENDATIONS #1490
As Chairman of the Street Light Committee, Councilor Reginatto stated that the city would not be installing a light on Eagle Ridge since the installation was contingent upon the relocation of a pole, and that had not taken place. No action was taken.
On a motion by Councilor Reginatto, seconded by Councilor Bascetta, the Council voted, with the exception of Councilor Soliani who abstained, to accept the Committee’s recommendation to deny the installation of a light at 345 East Pearl Road, since they felt the request was basically for security reasons for private property.
On a motion by Councilor Reginatto, seconded by Councilor Bascetta, the Council voted unanimously to deny the installation of a light at Technology Park Drive near the Fuel Cell driveway until such time as further areas were developed and power was brought to that area.
FINAL REPORT of the CHARTER REVISION #1610
Councilor Soliani made a motion to accept the Final Report from the Charter Revision Commission. Councilor Samele seconded the motion.
During discussion, Councilor Reginatto indicated that only two items remained after two years of work by the Charter Revision Commission, namely the increased limit from $3,000.00 to $10,000.00 to go out to bid, and the waiving of the bid bond, which the Council didn’t agree with. He noted that the Commission had denied all the proposed changes made by the Council and he was not interested in going any further.
Corp. Counsel Vasko indicated that the Council needed to either, accept the report, or parts of the report, and could set a date for referendum tonight or in the near future. A referendum would need to be held within eighteen months from the Council’s vote on the Final Report tonight.
Councilor Dalla Valle agreed with Councilor Reginatto not to move forward, based on the fact that the Charter Revision Commission acted on only two of the six recommendations the City Council had submitted. He felt a referendum would be a waste of the taxpayer’s money for only one or two questions, and that the city should move on by appointing a new Charter Revision Commission.
Atty. Victor Muschell, Chairman of the Charter Revision Commission, indicated that the Commission’s actions included in this Final Report addressed the six items voted on by the Council. Although the Commission had approved some items and rejected others, Atty. Muschell pointed out that there was a host of other things that were still part of the report. For instance, the Commission’s compromise in the financial department issue was to eliminate, in many areas, the emphasis on the Board of Finance control and move it over to the City Council. Atty. Muschell felt there was still more than one question to put before the taxpayers of Torrington.
Mayor Quinn said he would be remiss if he didn’t say he believed the Commission looked anew at the six items recommended by the Council, and the only one the Commission continued not to move on was waiving the bid bond in connection with the bidding process. He believed the Council and the Commission had agreed to increase the limit from $3,000.00 to $10,000.00. They agreed not to extend the terms of any city official. He believed the Council voted not to change the wording of the Charter to allow for a Finance Director unless there were current jobs being replaced, and the Commission took steps to reinforce that belief in showing that there would be reporting, not only to the Mayor, but to the City Council as well. The only item the Commission was unwilling to start anew on because no
discussion had taken place during public hearings was the Council’s recommendation that the Finance Board be advisory only. Similarly, the Commission took no action on the Council’s recommendation for a one year waiting period for city officials to get a job in the private sector working for anyone having done business with the city, because it had not been part of the public hearing process and they felt that it was not necessarily a provision of the Charter, but rather an issue with the Board of Ethics or Personnel.
Mayor Quinn felt the Commission’s Final Report was in concurrence with the Board of Councilmen’s wishes, with the exception of Item #1, and it would be a great injustice to the city not to take those changes to a referendum, where there is substantial agreement, including the whole verbiage changes necessary to bring the Charter into the twenty first century.
The only disagreement between the City Council and the Charter Revision Commission was the provision not to eliminate the waiving of the bid process.
Councilor Soliani said she felt the voters of the City of Torrington had the ability and intelligence to decide whether or not these charter revisions should take place. She didn’t think the decision should be left to six people on the Council.
Councilor Dalla Valle disagreed with Mayor Quinn’s belief that the bid bond was the only item the Council and the Charter Commission disagreed upon, based on the fact that the Commission didn’t address the fact that the Council asked and voted on in full agreement to make the Finance Board advisory only. The Commission rejected that recommendation from the Council on the basis that this item had not been discussed.
He continued to say “The second item that everyone keeps referring to as addressing that you feel that you met our wishes and what we asked for, and again, as the author of those recommended changes, I know what I was asking and apparently everyone else doesn’t, so I need to clarify that because apparently everybody thinks what I was asking was that the City Council have authority over the Finance Department. That is not anywhere near what I was asking. What I was asking was very clear, and the Mayor stated it again, but apparently we’re all missing it. What I asked was that positions be eliminated in other areas to allow for a Finance Director to be hired at some point. That was never considered, so the compromise was, we’ll give the Council control over the Finance
Department. I don’t think the Finance Department should exist unless other departments are eliminated, and that part is the part that we don’t agree on, and the Council at that time agreed to pass that forward to you. Now it’s changed. Somebody thought it was only to take the accountability away, that the Finance Department would answer to the Finance Board and it was us Council members who just wanted them to answer to the Council. That was not my intent.”
Atty. Muschell didn’t believe the Charter Revision Commission had misinterpreted Councilor Dalla Valle’s intent.
Councilor Dalla Valle said, “So, you are disagreeing with that recommendation?”
Atty. Muschell: “We went part way, but not all the way.”
Councilor Dalla Valle, “So, I am correct in saying that you are disagreeing with that recommendation.”
Atty. Muschell: “Partly.”
Councilor Dalla Valle said “Then you are disagreeing with the recommendation to make the Finance Board advisory only.”
Atty. Muschell said “Yes.”
Mayor Quinn said “That we do agree on. What I thought, in my attendance of that meeting, is that by allowing the City Council to have authority over the Finance Director, since the City Council has budgetary responsibility, they could ensure that if they hired a Finance Director, that there would be additional job reduction as intended by the motion that was put forward by...(sentence unfinished).”
Atty. Muschell told Mayor Quinn he was absolutely correct. That was the effect of what the Commission had done, however, it didn’t seem to satisfy Councilor Dalla Valle.
Mayor Quinn said he felt very strongly that he and Councilor Dalla Valle were in agreement with the fact that they wouldn’t put a Finance Director in place unless there were cost savings associated with it. Should the Council want to institute a Finance Director, they would be in the position to eliminate or consolidate positions within the Finance Department since they are in control of the budgetary situation and in control of funding those positions. Mayor Quinn felt that was congruent with what was going on with the Finance Director.
Atty. Muschell indicated that Mayor Quinn’s scenario was a way to compromise the issue.
Councilor Reginatto pointed out that the Board of Finance would still have the final say on budget items and could overrule the Council on any item. If the Council chose to eliminate a position, the Board of Finance could reinstate it. He noted that he, as well as several other people, had spoken to the Charter Revision Commission on several occasions about this matter, and he wanted to send it to the voters to let them decide whether the Finance Board should be an advisory board only.
Councilor Ruwet said she would support the report because all of this was about compromises, and although it wasn’t inclusive of all the Council’s recommendations, they would have to display confidence in the public. Too much time had been invested not to move forward.
VOTE #2460
Councilors Ruwet, Samele, Soliani and Bascetta voted to approve the Final Draft. Councilors Dalla Valle and Reginatto opposed the motion . On a 4-2 vote, the motion carried.
Mayor Quinn asked Corp. Counsel Vasko to report back to the Council during their next meeting in regard to time lines and legal applicable sections that would need to be adhered to for potential dates for a referendum, etc.
CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR DOWNTOWN TORRINGTON #2510
On a motion by Councilor Dalla Valle, seconded by Councilor Bascetta, the Council voted unanimously to endorse the conceptual master plan for Downtown Torrington and referred it to the State of Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, as recommended by the Planning & Zoning and Economic Development Commissions.
During discussion, Councilor Dalla Valle noted that the master plan was the best plan that had ever come across anyone’s desk. It was his belief that the Council should just vote to approve the plan without further ado.
Jamie Minor was given permission to speak. She inquired whether the Allen Building would be impacted by the plan. If not, she urged them to incorporate it.
Mayor Quinn said he believed all comments made during a public hearing were incorporated into an addendum to the report. It will go before the CEPA study who will look at alternatives as well. The testimony given to save the historic Allen Building will be looked at by the State of Connecticut. A master plan will then come back to the city for public comment and a referendum.
BUSINESS: DEPT. HEADS #2890
On a motion by Councilor Reginatto, seconded by Councilor Dalla Valle, the Council voted unanimously to consider business presented by Department Heads.
There was none.
BUSINESS: MAYOR & MEMBERS #2960
On a motion by Councilor Reginatto, seconded by Councilor Dalla Valle, the Council voted unanimously to consider business presented by Mayor Quinn and members of the City Council.
Councilor Reginatto inquired whether the city could benefit from free labor given by students attending Oliver Wolcott Technical School.
Mayor Quinn said he would discuss that with Mr. Rollett.
Councilor Ruwet said she appreciated the notice she received from Park & Recreation in regard to the Tree Lighting Ceremony. She commended the Park & Recreation Department for all the work they did in connection with the holidays.
She asked Deputy Chief Milano to follow up on her traffic concerns on Torringford Street. It was her opinion that the Council needed to make certain the area was studied.
Mayor Quinn assured Councilor Ruwet that the city and the state would be working on that project jointly in the upcoming months.
ADJOURNMENT #3200
On a motion by Councilor Ruwet, seconded by Councilor Soliani, the Council voted unanimously to adjourn at 9:00 P.M.
ATTEST: JOSEPH L. QUARTIERO, CCTC, CMC
CITY CLERK
| 
