MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL & WPC AUTHORITY
AUGUST 15, 2005
A REGULAR MEETING of the City Council & WPC Authority was held on Monday, August 15, 2005, in the Council Chambers.
Those in attendance included Mayor Owen J. Quinn, Jr., City Councilors Thomas C. Jerram, Paul F. Samele, Jr., Marie P. Soliani, James F. McKenna, Paul W. Summers, and Drake L. Waldron, Corp. Counsel Albert Vasko, City Engineer Edward Fabbri, Tax Assessor Donna Patchen, Zoning & Inland Wetlands Enforcement Officer Kimberly Barbieri, Economic Development Coordinator Christina Emery, and Fire Chief John Field.
Mayor Quinn called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. (There was no quorum for the meeting of the Board of Trustees scheduled for 6:30 p.m.)
MINUTES #050
On a motion by Councilor Waldron, seconded by Councilor Summers, the council, with the exception of Councilor Samele who abstained, voted to accept the minutes of the regular meeting held August 1, 2005.
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC #070
On a motion by Councilor Summers, seconded by Councilor Jerram, the council voted unanimously to open the meeting to the public.
Robert Muller, 1119 Weigold Road, owner of the last home in Torrington prior to Winchester, stated that in the winter of 2000, he and his neighbors had a problem with security and, when the police were called, they had a difficult time finding his home. They even thought he lived in Winchester. As a result, Mr. Muller and his neighbors hired Paul Griffin as their attorney and signed a petition to get street lights installed. To further complicate matters, the City of Torrington moved the Weigold street sign south of Mr. Muller’s driveway.
Mr. Muller explained that the Street Light Committee and the City Council did, in fact, approve the lighting on October 4, 2004 for lights on poles 2232, 4403, and 4408, which are all located in Torrington. Since that time, nothing has been done.
Mr. Muller felt that not having lights was a major safety issue, and since they had already been approved, he requested that the street lights be installed and that the street sign be moved back to its original location. (Please refer to #805)
Maurice Moreau, 334 Goshen Road, Litchfield, owner and developer of the future Moreau Park South on South Main Street, Torrington, said he fully supported the tax abatement program which the council would be voting on.
William Zampaglione, 330 Migeon Avenue, also the developer of Moreau Park South, shared the same sentiment, and thought it would be good for business.
TAX ABATEMENT: TORR. MUN. & TEACHER’S CR. UNION # 350
On a motion by Councilor Waldron, seconded by Councilor Summers, the council voted unanimously to approve the Tax Abatement Application under the city’s Tax Incentive Policy from the Torrington Municipal & Teachers Federal Credit Union for an assessed value of improvements/additions in the amount of $234,800.00 at 100% exemption for two years.
TAX ABATEMENT: TORR. MUN. & TEACHER’S CR. UNION # 350
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor Samele, the council voted unanimously to approve the Tax Abatement Application under the city’s Tax Incentive Policy from the Torrington Municipal & Teachers Federal Credit Union for an exemption on personal property of 50% of the assessed value ($43,013.00), which is $21,506.00 for three years.
REVISE: TAX INCENTIVE POLICY #380
On a motion by Councilor Summers, seconded by Councilor Waldron, a discussion took place in regard to the proposed revision to the City of Torrington’s Tax Incentive Policy.
Economic Development Coordinator Christina Emery explained that the proposed changes would make Torrington more in line with other comparable towns such as Bristol, Berlin, Danbury, New Milford, and New Britain.
The changes would better define the uses for eligibility and remove retail and storage from eligible uses under the Tax Abatement Program. It would also require applicants to apply for the M65, which is an Exemption of Manufacturing Equipment, as a prerequisite for this program. The advantage is that this program is reimbursable by the state. The changes also include a phased-in abatement schedule for companies to receive a significant reduction in their taxes, but it would be phased-in over a seven year period instead of the 100% as it is currently set up. The committee modeled a downtown special abatement after the town of Enfield. This is not just for manufacturing and industrial use, but also for commercial and retail. Residential buildings 25 years or older, if rehabilitated, can
also receive an abatement that is phased-in instead of the owner receiving the full brunt of the new taxes all at once. This will promote investment and rehabilitation of downtown properties.
Other changes are minor. They include adding the Economic Development Coordinator to the staff to review the applications and to make certain there’s a job component attached. It would also require that the Tax Assessor be furnished with better documentation. The tax abatement is at the discretion of the City Council. The changes will promote the city and compliment the next item on the agenda (the Enterprise Zone Benefits), which is geared more towards manufacturing uses.
Councilor Summers pointed out that the proposed changes include phasing in at 50% in the first year and 75% in the second year, and asked if it would make better sense to have more of an abatement up front when a new business is struggling, and phase it out over a period of time.
Mrs. Emery said it was a gradual increase in the amount of taxes paid. From $25,000.00 to $500,000.00, the company would be paying half of the new taxes in year one, and then 75% of the new tax bill. She added that it may be confusing, but a company starting out would be paying half of the new taxes at first and then 75% of the new tax bill.
Mrs. Emery further explained that the city would still have to work with those companies under the old policy, on a case by case basis, since they hadn’t yet applied.
Tax Assessor Donna Patchen explained that the M65 would allow the city to get reimbursed up to 80% of the assessed value of exemption from the state, as opposed to the local option where we are possibly giving 0% for up to two years. The city would get something back, although the manufacturer is still reaping the benefits where they pay nothing for five years.
The M65 is only for manufacturing equipment, and not for real estate.
Councilor Summers asked about information technology.
Mrs. Emery explained that information technology was any high tech company such as a computer internet based company. The EDC wanted information technology to be considered as one of the eligible uses.
Councilor Summers inquired about the rehabilitation of residential property and whether any person with applicable housing in that area, which is basically all downtown, would be eligible.
Mrs. Emery stated that they would be eligible provided that the property is 25 years old or older and that the improvements will increase the property value by 10% or more. This is to encourage investments in older residential properties.
Councilor Summers asked if it would apply to additions to a home or merely the remodeling of the home.
Mrs. Emery indicated that it depended on whether the value of the house would increase by 10%.
Councilor Jerram said the proposal included doing cost benefit analysis under certain circumstances, and asked if it would include commercial industrial properties.
Mrs. Emery said yes. She explained that some towns like Bristol base their abatement on job creation. We decided against doing it in that manner, but included an analysis of job creation and balanced it out with what they were giving away in the abatement and what the long term benefits to the city would be.
Councilor Jerram said he would also like to see that done for any of the residential properties that would be considered under Section 4.
Councilor Jerram pointed out that the City Charter speaks about a Tax Incentive Plan for downtown properties that would receive some favorable tax treatment and wondered how this plan would impact our Charter and whether or not it would require a revision of our Charter. He was concerned over the fact that the city still had several historical buildings with residential components.
Corp. Counsel Vasko said it was his belief that the ordinance pertained to historical buildings that have been rehabilitated. The Litchfield Insurance Group was the only one he could recall ever applying for benefits under that ordinance for a building on South Main Street. The proposed plan would not conflict with the ordinance in question. There would be two options which a person could apply for. The historical building ordinance is a lot more detailed as to what they need to do to keep it historically significant, while this is more of a generic Tax Incentive Plan.
Mrs. Emery further explained that the ordinance which Councilor Jerram was referring to only pertained to buildings on the National Register of Historic Places, so it’s a far more limited program.
Councilor Jerram asked how this Tax Incentive Policy would be assimilated into our new economic policy that we’re forming with Winchester in regard to the properties that would meet those requirements.
Mrs. Emery said companies that would be located in the enterprise zone would be eligible for another tax abatement, which is what we would want to encourage. It’s a five year, 80% abatement and the advantage to the city is that we will be reimbursed 40% by the state. This wouldn’t be in addition to, but for companies that may not be eligible for enterprise zone status, it would be another incentive program that we could offer. We would like to use that program first, whenever possible, due to the reimbursement. The DECD looked at the new abatement plan and agreed that they could work and compliment each other.
Mayor Quinn stated that the great thing about the Enterprise Corridor is that it will augment the City of Torrington’s tax base, because whatever we give as tax incentive, we can now recoup from the State of Connecticut. There will be no loss to the taxpayers.
Mayor Quinn personally thanked Mrs. Emery and Mrs. Patchen for their excellent work with the proposed Tax Incentive Policy, as well as all the department heads who attended a number of land use meetings on this matter. The degree of knowledge between them all demonstrates the hard work and effort on behalf of the city. The policy will further make the City of Torrington more competitive in bringing and obtaining businesses in our area.
Councilor Jerram wanted to make certain that a cost benefit analysis would be performed on every property that came before the City Council.
Mrs. Emery said “That can be done.” She indicated that they would be promoting the policy as a way of revitalizing downtown.
VOTE #800
On the previous motion, the Council voted unanimously to accept the revision to the City of Torrington’s Tax Incentive Policy.
Ralph Sabia stated that great progress has been made by the approval of the Tax Abatement Policy.
WEIGOLD ROAD #805
Mayor Quinn informed Mr. Muller that he, Corp. Counsel Vasko and City Engineer Edward Fabbri visited his property, reviewed the e-mails sent to Atty. Vasko, and seen that the city limit signs were moved. Mr. Muller was correct that the City Council approved the action of the installation of lights on October 4, 2004. The Engineering Department has since been asked to make the installation of lights a priority. He noted that he received faulty information in the past, however, after conversing with personnel in the Street Department, the proper location of the city limits have been identified. He thanked everyone for their patience.
ENTERPRISE CORRIDOR ZONE #970
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor Samele, the board voted unanimously to accept the recommendation from the Economic Development Commission to authorize Mayor Quinn to form an Inter-municipal Agreement with the town of Winchester and submit a formal application to the State of Connecticut Department of Economic & Community Development for Enterprise Corridor Zone status.
Mrs. Emery explained that under previous legislation, the size of our city made us ineligible for enterprise zone status. She approached the state about doing an enterprise corridor with Winsted. However, according to state law, three contiguous distressed towns were necessary and we only had two. Recently the legislation changed to make Torrington and Winsted eligible. It opens it up to additional tax abatements which are partially reimbursed by the state. We need to formalize an application to the state and include a map designating where we want to see industrial growth occur. This program is mainly for manufacturing uses.
Mrs. Emery further explained that our land use staff identified all areas currently zoned industrial and industrial park. It includes undeveloped land such as the land along South Main Street, the former land fill, undeveloped land on Kennedy Drive and Winsted Road, the industrial park and older industrial facilities like the Torrington Company and Royal Precision, which may eventually be re-developed for increased industrial use. The Economic Development Commission approved the map shown to the Council. They suggested adding some areas shown in yellow, additional residential land along Kennedy Drive and Winsted Road surrounded by industrial zoned areas. The Commission also recommended adding some downtown properties that are not zoned industrial, namely the Stone Container, Torrington Lumber
Company, Hotchkiss and Franklin Products. The Land Use Staff discussed this matter and decided that those areas are better suited for commercial re-use and would fall into the downtown abatement. It was the recommendation of the Land Use Staff to leave those properties out of the proposed map. A draft agreement between Torrington and the Town of Winchester needs to be approved by this board as well.
Mayor Quinn stated that the final action will be taken to the Litchfield Hills Council of Elected Officials for their endorsements as well.
Mrs. Emery further stated that it will then be brought to the DECD for the Commissioner’s approval.
Mayor Quinn thanked Mrs. Emery and the Land Use Group made up of department heads from Public Works, Engineering, Building, Inland Wetlands, Planning & Zoning, and the Corp. Counsel.
Mayor Quinn stated that the Litchfield Hills Council of Elected Officials was encouraging the more rural communities to learn more about what the urban centers of Winchester and Torrington were attempting to do in order to get a comprehensive plan that Litchfield County could all buy into, as Smart Growth initiatives.
It was noted that the proposed areas were highlighted in green on a map that was presented; those highlighted in yellow in the section of Burrville and the residential areas on the right hand side of Kennedy Drive were to be included as well.
Mrs. Emery further stated that the additional parcels are currently zoned residential. If they were to be developed residential, it would not be an eligible category for enterprise zone status, but the EDC felt since it was surrounded by industrial areas, it made sense to include them should they ever be developed industrial use in the future.
Mayor Quinn explained that the city could always come back to the EDC, the City Council, and the DECD to make changes to the areas.
Councilor Jerram inquired whether several properties were included. (Norwood St., So. Main St. at the Moreau Industrial Park and Turner & Seymour, the Mountain Top Trucking Company on Lincoln St., and properties bordering Summer St. and High St.) Those mentioned were indeed included.
In regard to Stone Container, presently zoned as general business, the Commission talked about adding it, but the staff’s recommendation was to exclude it because they felt it was better suited for retail.
Councilor Jerram said general business zoned was pretty flexible. He noted that there were viable properties at the Stone Container site and it wasn’t clear in his mind if there would be that quick a change there even with the city’s redevelopment plan. He thought because there was such a large amount of space there, that they should include it for a potential industrial use. It may change to commercial use, but it may not happen for twenty years, and he didn’t think because there’s a large pool of existing space that they should ignore it.
Mrs. Emery stated that it would be up to the City Council to add that area to the Enterprise Zone eligible properties. Once again, the EDC did make that recommendation.
Councilor Jerram said it would probably be more classical incubator space, where many people would start their businesses, and those are the people who could use the most help in terms of trying to offset some of their fixed costs.
AMEND MOTION AND VOTE #1360
Councilor Jerram amended his original motion to add the land zoned general business, which included the High Street, Summer Street, and the Litchfield Street area to the proposed map. Councilor Samele amended his second. The vote was unanimous. Motion carried.
PROVISIONAL ACCEPTANCE ; TABLED #1380
On a motion by Councilor Soliani, seconded by Councilor Summers, the board voted unanimously to table the request for provisional acceptance of the following streets in the Country View Estates Subdivision to serve thirty six (36) residential lots:
A. Gate Post Lane, beginning at the intersection of Notting Hill Gate and Chelsea Court continuing east/northeast 855 feet and ending at a new street, Silver Brook Lane.
B. Silver Brook Lane, beginning at the intersection of Gate Post Lane and continuing to the east 552 feet to a cul-de-sac and also continuing from Gate Post Lane to the west 1,009 feet to another cul-de-sac. (Total length of road from cul-de-sac to cul-de-sac is 1,561 feet.
C. Coach Light Lane, a new interconnecting street between Gate Post Lane and Silver Brook Lane beginning at the approximate mid point of Gate Post Lane and continuing north 366 feet to Silver Brook Lane.
MICRO SURFACING ROADS #1400
On a motion by Councilor Summers, seconded by Councilor Samele, the board voted unanimously to award a unit price contract for the Micro-Surfacing of Roads to Dosch King Company, Inc. in the amount of One Dollar and Seventy Cents ($1.70) per square yard.
BID: FIRE DEPT. UNIFORMS # 1410
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor McKenna, the board voted unanimously to accept the Purchasing Agent’s recommendation to extend the Fire Department Uniforms Bid to Mag & Sons Uniforms of New Britain for the period of 12/1/2005 to 11/30/2006.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING #1400
On a motion by Councilor Summers, seconded by Councilor Samele, the board voted unanimously to accept the Memorandum of Understanding Between the State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety and the City of Torrington in regard to a grant under Public Law 108-7, award number 2003 MU-T3-0046.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION #1430
On a motion by Councilor Soliani, seconded by Councilor Summers, a discussion took place in regard to reinstating the Conservation Commission.
Zoning & Inland Wetlands Enforcement Officer Kimberly Barbieri indicated that there had been a real strong interest to reinstate the Conservation Commission which had been in existence until 1996. The role of the new Conservation Commission would bridge the gap between our local land preservation trust and our local volunteer groups like Trout Unlimited, and Wild Rivers, to bring certain projects to fruition. The Conservation Commission would look at historical, cultural and natural resources. The things that define Torrington and make it a special place all deserve to be conserved on some level. By doing this with a volunteer organization, the State Statute gives it the ability to solicit money, to acquire properties for the city with Council approval, and to help others, like the land
trust. They can also act as grant writers and sponsors of projects.
Reinstating the Conservation Commission would compliment the downtown renovation by preserving what’s special about Torrington. Mrs. Barbieri hoped the Council would see this as a worthwhile opportunity for Torrington.
Councilor Jerram inquired whether the proposed Conservation Commission would be similar to authorities like the Architectural Review and whether it would have more responsibility toward to Zoning Commission.
In regard to the Zoning Commission and the Inland Wetlands Commission, Mrs. Barbieri said it would virtually be the same as the Architectural Review; it would merely make recommendations. However, unlike the Architectural Review Commission, which is purely advisory, this Commission could also stand on its own to do outside projects. Their role would be twofold: one of which was to assist and look at the overall picture in terms of the Plan of Development that the Planning & Zoning Commission actually monitors. They would now be the holders of the open space plan to make sure it’s up to date and to make sure they obtain critical pieces or right-of-ways to connect corridors, if there are any available. They would also work closely with the Parks and Recreation Commission to see how to
connect the parks as part of the Master Plan. Unlike other commissions, they could have a funding group that could solicit money and hold fund raisers similar to the downtown development groups. They would be under the umbrella of the City Clerk in terms of reporting their regular meetings, annual reports, etc. Any critical purchases or grants would be reported directly to the City Council. The Conservation Commission would be the City Council’s arm on how to get conservation in town.
Councilor Soliani inquired as to the reason why the original Conservation Commission was abolished in 1996.
Mrs. Barbieri credited their summer intern, Jason Carmignani, for all the research he did on the former Commission. In speaking with several of the original members, Jason found out that they wanted funding to come from the City Council and weren’t being given any. Therefore, the members didn’t feel like they were accomplishing anything.
Councilor Summers inquired whether they would be voting on how many members the commission would have as well.
Mrs. Barbieri said they were recommending seven, including someone who would represent rivers, farmland, historical background, someone from Inland Wetlands, a Planning liaison, and two people not necessarily associated with any group. Someone interested in particular projects would be helpful to the Commission.
Mayor Quinn thanked Mrs. Barbieri and Jason Carmignani for all the work they accomplished on this matter.
Corp. Counsel Vasko explained that the City already has an ordinance that created this Commission, specifying seven members. Should the Council choose to specify that a member had to be from a certain group, the ordinance would have to be amended. Otherwise, Mayor Quinn could merely reinstate the Commission as it presently stands.
Mrs. Barbieri indicated they could go with the ordinance as is. However, they could wait until November or December so the group could work on meeting dates, create their bylaws and review their goals, which would have to be approved by the Council.
Councilor Jerram pointed out that a public hearing would be required to change the ordinance, and public input might be valuable.
Mayor Quinn stated that discussion had taken place on the matter and that no vote was necessary at this time.
TORRINGFORD SCHOOL BUILDING INVOICES #1945
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor Summers, the board voted unanimously to approve the following invoices from the Torringford School Building Fund #314:
Friar Asso., Inc. Inv. #24 Contract Admin. #11 $ 15,691.00
Test-Con, Inc. Inv. #3541 Inspection $ 3,345.00
Test-Con, Inc. Inv. #3542 Inspection $ 3,122.00
O & G Ind., Inc. Inv. #13 Svcs. through 7/31/05$1,352,840.00
Bell Elect. Cont. Inv. #12651 3 phone lines $ 1,598.40
Albreada Waste Inv. #10655 30 yd container $ 450.00
CT Restaurant Inv. #26166 Moved 2-door reach in$ 280.00
Councilor Soliani requested an up-date from Chairman John Calkins.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT REPORT #1970
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor Samele, the board voted unanimously to accept the Building Department Report for July 2005.
BUS: DEPT. HEADS #1980
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor McKenna, the board voted unanimously to consider business presented by Department Heads. There was none.
BUS: MAYOR & MEMBERS #1990
On a motion by Councilor McKenna, seconded by Councilor Samele, the board voted unanimously to consider business presented by Mayor Quinn and members of the City Council.
Councilor Waldron reported that his son had received his Eagle Scout Badge, and reported that a banquet was held to honor Torrington resident Louis Seiser for his 25th year as camp director.
Councilor Waldron pointed out that the Skate Park was a wonderful concept, however, the location was inappropriate, and felt it would further complicate an existing traffic problem in the area. In addition, the area is used for parking during little theater events, football and basketball games. Lastly, it could be a distraction to the high school environment. Although he realized that the trust fund could provide economic aid to help finish the project that wouldn’t be available elsewhere, he felt it would be better for the city to find a different location for the skate park.
Mayor Quinn explained, that prior to the Planning & Zoning Commission making a recommendation on the proposed skate park, he met with the Superintendent of Schools, the director of maintenance at the Board of Education, Engineering, Planning & Zoning, and the Police Department to try to rectify the existing problems. The city and the board of Education are working on a solution. The equipment is on its way and there is some cost being absorbed because of the delay. Ongoing discussions are taking place.
Traffic was the major issue, but vandalism and youth issues were also being discussed. He noted that the Parks & Recreation Commission made it abundantly clear that they would work with the School Administration to devise rules and regulations that would govern the park so that it would be friendly, not only to the youth, but would take into consideration that educational facilities would be on either side of where it would be located.
Mayor Quinn informed Councilor Waldron that he had a plaque in his office for his son’s accomplishment in becoming an Eagle Scout.
Councilor Jerram noted the 50th anniversary of the Flood of 55. He wished everyone well in their election campaign, and thanked everyone who worked so hard to accomplish the Enterprise Corridor Zone.
Councilor Summers reported that Heritage Day had a great turnout.
Councilors McKenna and Soliani congratulated Councilor Waldron’s son for his great accomplishment in receiving his Eagle Scout Badge.
Councilor Soliani pointed out that her grandson was also well on his way to achieving the same honor.
She reported having received a brochure advertising Flash Cams to help eliminate vandalism and requested that either Parks & Recreation or Public Works look into whether or not the city could benefit from them.
Mayor Quinn invited the Council to the Center Bridge on Friday to witness the 50th anniversary of the Flood of 55.
ADJOURNMENT #2580
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor Waldron, the board voted to adjourn at 7:45 p.m.
ATTEST: JOSEPH L. QUARTIERO, CMC
CITY CLERK
| 
