|
ENFIELD TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING AND SPECIAL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2004
A Public Hearing was called to order by Chairman Tallarita in the Council Chambers of the Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut on Wednesday, September 1, 2004. The Hearing was called to order at 7:06 p.m.
ROLL-CALL - Present were Councilmen Crowley, Edgar, Egan, Fiore, Kaupin, Mangini, Peruta, Tait, and Tallarita. Councilman Reveruzzi arrived at 7:30 p.m. Councilman Dodd was absent. Also present were Town Manager, Scott Shanley; Assistant Town Manager, Daniel Vindigni; Town Clerk, Suzanne Olechnicki; Director of Finance, Gregory Simmons; Director of Public Works, John Kazmarski; Town Engineer, Jeff Bord; Bond Counsel, Bruce Chudwick
Chairman Tallarita read the notice of Public Hearing which was published in the Journal Inquirer on Monday, August 23, 2004 as follows:
TOWN OF ENFIELD
LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2004
"The Enfield Town Council will hold a Public Hearing in the Enfield Town Hall, Council Chambers, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in order to allow public comment on the proposed referendum question for reconstruction and repair of various town road and roadside elements. Copies of the proposed referendum are available for public inspection in the office of the Town Clerk, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut, Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Mayor Tallarita announced the ground rules for the Public Hearing.
Mr. Shanley gave an overview of the financing plan. He reviewed three options. He noted if there is money left over from the Road 2000 Program, it can be applied as a revenue toward Road 2005.
He referred to a list of projected/anticipated project areas for the proposed Road 2005 Program and noted Section 14 has been included. He explained the Council has been trying to get Section 14 done this season. He noted they went out to bid for Green Manor Road and for Section 14, and the end result of the bid process is that it's their feeling it's too tight to be able to do Section 14 at this time. He explained this is because they currently have Section 10, 12, and 15 in close-out and Section 7 under construction. He pointed out this means some of the final numbers in all of these sections are still in flux. He added the Section 14 bids came in a few hundred thousand dollars higher than they anticipated. He noted the practical end result is that the Town doesn't believe they should take the risk of trying to do that because there are too many other things in flux.
Mr. Shanley stated they're recommending adding Section 14 to Road 2005 and execute Green Manor Road as planned. He noted this will insure that there's plenty of financing and funding available in the event that something happens in Section 14 resulting in the need for additional money. He noted this will allow some flexibility to complete the projects they have. He explained Options 2 and 3 are the two ways to accomplish this.
He explained Option 1 is $18 million in bonding, $22 million in authorization, and the difference being other revenue sources. Option 2 increases the total authorization to $24 million leaving the bonding at $18 million and recommends moving whatever money is left over from Road 2000 into Road 2005. He went on to explain Option 3 is to split the difference and move some of the money in and increase the proposed bond amount to $19 million as opposed to $18 million and keep $24 million as the total authorization.
Mr. Kazmarski stated it may be necessary to split some larger projects, i.e., Section 1. He noted they don't know what they will encounter when they start opening up some of those roads. He explained because of the narrowness of those roads, they may split up the project so that the project could be handled more efficiently. He added this will also keep traffic flowing. He noted they may handle Section 3 similarly.
Mr. Shanley stated although the sections are numerically ordered, that doesn't necessarily mean they will be done in numerical order. He explained they have broken up sections in this order to create areas of commonality that will allow them to be more efficient in bidding the work out. He went on to note it's their intent to get this work done in five years because it is a five-year plan as was Road 2000.
Mr. Kazmarski noted Section 14 is already designed. He noted Section 13 is under design, however, with the lake areas in this section and the Inland/Wetlands and DEP permitting process, this section could be extended for another year.
As concerns work to be done, Mr. Kazmarski stated it's their intent to follow the same routing as was followed in all the other sections.
Mr. Shanley referred to Option 2 and noted the Town is currently contributing about $600,000 per year in the CIP Roads account and they have another $200,000 from the Post Road 2000 contribution. He stated in anticipation of additional revenue of $2 million dollars (some of that would be the money rolled forward from Road 2000 in order to cover part of the cost of Section 14), plus the current funding of $800,000 over five years, which amounts to $4 million dollars, $18 million dollars in bonding, would render a $24 million dollar package. He highlighted the expense side.
He then reviewed Option 3 which he noted is basically the same thing, but for a reduction in the additional revenue and an increase in the bonding.
Councilman Tait questioned the difference between current Post 2000 contribution and the additional revenue Road 2000 contribution. Mr. Shanley explained the current annual CIP contribution and Post Road 2000 contribution, which add up to $800,000 is money that the Council is currently appropriating into the budget every year and the additional revenue can be a transfer in of leftover Road 2000 money and/or if they're able to get the grant they're seeking for Raffia Road, they would count that as additional revenue and it doesn't hurt other projects.
Councilman Crowley questioned if it would be prudent to put all the projects out to bid early. Mr. Shanley stated when they did Road 2000 and when they do Road 2005, they are working with the same number of staff people that they had before they were doing this much work. He noted they used to do a half million dollars of work per year and now they're doing $2 ½ to $3 million dollars of work per year with the same number of people, and they've found that's about the maximum amount of work they can handle with this size staff. He noted this work involves engineering, review, inspections, and all that goes into preparing the bid documents.
Councilman Crowley questioned if it might be wise to do the largest project first, and Mr. Shanley responded not necessarily. He explained each section has an estimated value associated with them. He noted Section 1 will be the area they will have the most opportunity for unknown costs. He stated they haven't built in a yearly inflation factor and they did not do that for Road 2000 either. He explained the reason for this is because they wanted to be as up front and direct with the public as possible.
Councilman Crowley questioned if they were close on the Section 14 estimate back in 2000. Mr. Kazmarski stated it was about $300,000 over what was anticipated. Mr. Shanley stated Section 7 came in over a million more due to all the drainage work. He added because the Town's engineering staff engineered and oversaw Section 8 and some of the work was done by Town crews, they saved hundreds of thousands of dollars on that particular section. He pointed out they do not have enough staff to be able to do this across town, but if they can find areas where this is possible and save money, it gives them the flexibility and that's the reason for not necessarily jumping into a bigger section first.
Councilman Mangini questioned which option the Town staff is looking toward. Mr. Shanley responded either Option 2 or 3.
Councilman Fiore referred to Option #3 and noted if they were successful to get federal transportation partial funding of Raffia Road, how could those monies be used. Mr. Shanley stated this would be additional revenue but it wouldn't be moved in until the end.
PUBLIC HEARING
Steve Twitchell, 18 Longhollow Road
Noted Longhollow Road is in terrible condition, and over the years he has been in touch with the town concerning these problems. He stated Longhollow Road was included as part of the Roads 2000 proposal, however, nothing has happened other than patchwork at the beginning of the street. He noted he spoke with someone from engineering recently and was told Longhollow would not be included in Roads 2005, however, he now sees it on that list.
Mr. Twitchell stated residents on this street pay considerable taxes, however, they don't enjoy the luxury of the public sewer system, public water supply, hydrants, streetlights, or sidewalks. He noted at best, this road is plowed in the winter when the Town gets to it. He pointed out after the road is plowed, the ice at the bottom of his driveway is eight inches or more. He noted as a result of these conditions the snowmelt has ruined the first 30 feet of his driveway. He stated Longhollow Road also has tremendous potholes that take their toll on vehicles.
He noted he has a petition from residents of Longhollow to include this road and include it as a priority.
Michael Mancuso, Locke Drive
Spoke about the poor condition of his street. He questioned when his street would be addressed. Mr. Shanley stated it's the Town's intention to do all the roads on this list over the next five years.
Michael DeLisa, 12 Rosanne Street
Noted his street is not on the list, however, all the streets around him are included. He noted his road is now crumbling. He added his concern if something isn't done soon, there won't be anything left of that road. Councilman Fiore stated the consulting firm has indicated Rosanne just needs an overlay, not a total reconstruction.
Margaret Jedziniak, 232 Abbe Road
Questioned what the criteria is when the Town takes over a street that wasn't previously a Town road.
Ms. Jedziniak questioned whether there's going to be some guarantee from developers required by Planning & Zoning that there will be no drainage problems that will be left for taxpayers to pay for in the future once a subdivision is completed.
Chairman Tallarita requested the Town Manager explain the Planning & Zoning road acceptance process. Mr. Shanley pointed out much of the work they're doing on old roads is a result of inadequate drainage. He went on to note there are now road standards that are required. He suggested Mr. Bord address what the road standards are for developers.
Mr. Bord stated new roads are built with a 50-foot right-of-way, sidewalks, curbing, and storm drainage designed for a ten-year storm and up to a 25-year storm and with detention if necessary. He indicated this work is inspected by engineering during construction and roads are not accepted until they are up to standard.
Jack Sheridan, 7 Buchanan Road
Stated his concern about Road 2005 has to do with the amount they're talking about. He feels part of the reason the Council has to go for a bigger number and more streets is to get a more widely spread vote from the people so that it can be approved. He feels they should be more concerned with their capacities, both financially to the taxpayers and to the road index condition. He noted no matter what that index is or how they apply those numbers, he feels it would be best done incrementally. He added his belief the road index is a good thing, and if they go by that in smaller sections, it would be more feasible.
Mr. Sheridan questioned when the interest starts on the total amount of the bonding. He also questioned how they apply the road index.
Mr. Shanley stated if they were to sell the entire $18 million-15 years up front, and they had a 1% grand list growth per year and they had a 5% interest rate, they would see a maximum mil rate impact of just over a mil. As concerns a projected scenario, he estimated somewhere over a mil, however, they will spread that out. He noted in 2011, the first Road 2000 bond issue will be paid off, and in 2011, they will see a million dollar reduction in their debts payment. He pointed out there are so many variables that there's no way to say exactly how it's going to go.
Mr. Shanley explained last year the Council directed Town staff to have all of the roads re-analyzed and look at a variety of factors to determine the pavement condition index. He noted this is a number somewhere between zero and 100 - 100 being a perfect road. He noted if they don't address some of the roads in the 50-60 range, they could drop into the 30 range and end up costing a lot more to rebuild. He explained the current list consists of a combination of very bad roads in the 40's and 50's and there are some roads rated higher because they need to be re-done while it's less expensive to do them. He pointed out that over a number of decades the Town did not invest in their roads as they should have, therefore, they fell behind, however, he feels confident in another five years, the Town will be in good condition.
Elaine Mejia, 9 John Street
Stated her impression John Street was included in the Roads 2000 Program. She noted this street has numerous water problems. She stated her understanding the sewer drainage and runoff water are all in one on this street, in that the storm and sewer drains have never been separated. She questioned how this impacts the sewer treatment plant.
Mr. Shanley stated if piping needs to be replaced, it will be replaced. He noted they don't know what needs to be replaced until they get in there. He went on to note the Town has invested millions of dollars in storm water separation in Enfield over the last eight or nine years. He stated most old sections of Enfield, such as Thompsonville, were industrial at one time and had combined systems. He noted every community has struggled with these separations. He stated if they do find there's a combination, they will have to separate them.
Mr. Kazmarski agreed with Mr. Shanley. He noted as concerns the cost of doing the separation work, the Town was successful in getting close to a million dollars in DEP grants for doing separation work, and there is still additional money available through DEP, and the Town's intent is that if they run into a situation where there is a combined system, the elimination of that storm water discharge into the sanitary sewer system is a responsibility of the Water Pollution Control Plant and it will be taken care of with either DEP or DPUC funding.
Amy Guzzie, 44 Longhollow Road
Spoke about the safety concerns on her road, i.e., the narrowness of the road in certain areas and the inability to safely pass another car; potholes, no streetlights; poor drainage, crumbling roadway, etc. She encouraged Council members to visit this road.
Joseph Saroce, Briarwood Drive
Noted his road is in Section 4 but it's not on this list. He voiced his dissatisfaction with the Town. He feels the rating of Town streets by a consultant is extremely costly. He questioned how much the Town is presently in debt with bonding. He questioned the tax increase for this, and is this the end of the road work, or will these projects continue. He recommended voters defeat this referendum because he believes Enfield has the lowest per capita income in the Hartford area.
Mr. Shanley stated the total debt is $34 million dollars. As concerns the tax increase, he stated at its peak, if the Town sold all $18 million up front for 15 years at 5% interest with 1% growth per year in the grand list, they are looking at just over a mil at its peak. He noted in reality they won't sell it all up front, but rather they would spread it out.
Shawn Chapps, 21 Longhollow Road
Voiced his concern about Longhollow Road. He noted there are potholes everywhere. He noted he spoke with Tom McGee who was in charge of the Roads 2000 Program and he was assured Longhollow was going to be taken care of. He stated they recently patched the beginning of the road, however, the balance of the road remains the same. He questioned when this road will be fixed.
Mr. Shanley stated Longhollow Road is part of the 2005 Program, and they will do what they can to address these roads within the next five years. Chairman Tallarita agreed that Longhollow Road is part of this program, however, they just can't say where it's going to fit in the five-year plan at this time.
Charles Woods, 11 Westerly Drive
Voiced his support of a roads program, but he questions if the Town is biting off too much at one time. He noted there are other things to be considered in the future, i.e., athletic fields and the Powder Hollow bridge.
Mr. Woods stated there are some roads that have flooding problems, but the plan only calls for an overlay. He noted he sees some streets that are so dangerous, he believes the Town should be ashamed to let school children walk down them. He pointed out there are roads with no shoulders or sidewalks, they're hilly, curvy and in terrible shape. He noted they are asking kindergarten children to walk one mile to a bus, and he feels that's wrong. He stated his belief one thing they should be looking at besides PCI is safety and other conditions such as flooding when deciding the order of doing things. He recommended cutting back on this project, pick out the very poor streets and take a large number of streets and just fill in the cracks.
Mr. Woods stated older people can't afford to live in Enfield and are moving out. He noted younger families are moving in, and this will put more pressure on the schools. He noted they need to revise this plan to cut down on the amount of major construction and be more selective about the roads they're going to address.
Mrs. Collins, Hazardville Section
Questioned what happens with the bidding process if it goes over. She questioned if they have a contract that holds them to their bids. She questioned if all the streets were done in Roads 2000.
Mr. Shanley stated the last referendum was $15 million dollars in bonding and $21.6 million dollars in total authorization. He noted in reality, they ended up spending just about $19.7 million dollars. He explained the reason that it's not the $21.6 million dollars is because they were hoping for grants that they did not get.
Mr. Shanley explained the bid process is relatively complex. He noted when a firm bids on a road, there are about 60 different categories that they bid on, and they bid on what they estimate to be the amount of material or time necessary and the cost of the material/time. He noted the engineering department analyzes the bids and they work very hard to hold the firms to those bids. He noted unforeseen circumstances that come up in the middle of a project can drive up costs, i.e., unearthing a stump dump under a road way.
Frank Jedziniak, 232 Abbe Road
Stated not long ago, 7,000 voters rejected a referendum, and now the Town is presenting a $18 to $22 million dollar referendum. He stated his belief Enfield is a blue collar Town and can't afford such a referendum.
Margaret Jedziniak, 232 Abbe Road
Questioned when the Town is going to enforce people to remove their water drains from drains in the street.
Steve Twitchell, 18 Longhollow Road
Stated he welcomes the Road 2005 Program, as well as any future road programs if needed. He added the Town also needs a good road maintenance program.
Jack Sheridan, 7 Buchanan Road
As concerns combined storm water drainage in the sewer system, Mr. Sheridan stated if this isn't included in the road index, perhaps it should be included.
Chairman Tallarita questioned if the Town has knowledge of any roads with this problem and is this used in the index. Mr. Kazmarski stated as far as the PCI is concerned, it would be virtually impossible for anyone to make a judgment regarding drainage. He noted this is why the PCI is based upon roadway condition, and the Town has taken it upon themselves to use a factor to increase what their estimated costs are for a particular road if they suspect drainage problems. As concerns the combined sanitary sewers system, they generally know where these may exist, however, they don't know specifically which roads or houses are involved. He noted they do not have records on a lot of things built in the 1940's, 1950's or 1960's. He stated the record keeping wasn't that good, and they didn't have computers to store a lot of data. Mr. Shanley stated they weren't always "as builts", i.e., there was an extensive underground drainage system the Town knew nothing about on Glendale until they hit it.
Councilman Fiore pointed out some of the combined systems in the Thompsonville section date back to 1910 and 1920 and the records just don't exist anymore. He stated there is another column in the data base they received from the consultant, and this is labeled "benefits". Mr. Kazmarski stated the benefit factor relates to vehicles using the road itself, and it does not take into consideration whether there's a drainage problem. He went on to note there were a number of roads where they were planning to do an overlay. He stated they took a close, hard look at the road, and if there was a drainage problem, they addressed the drainage problem and then did the overlay. He pointed out this is their intent.
Chairman Tallarita requested Mr. Kazmarski address how the roads will be addressed hereafter. Mr. Kazmarski stated included in this year's budget is a relatively small amount of money - $136,000 for the Pavement Management Program Plan (PMP). He explained their intent is to start a process by which certain appropriate maintenance procedures are identified for roads. He noted these will be roads in the 70 to 80 category where they are looking at crack-sealing, perhaps some shoulder maintenance, some drainage corrections and minor things. He stated this would not involve any significant endeavors, such as rebuilding a section of road. He noted this money has not been specifically identified in prior years because they were working with a larger pot of money on the Road 2000 Program, and they were accomplishing a lot of maintenance work.
Councilman Fiore questioned how will they address those roads that staff and the consultant have identified as needing overlays if they're not included in the Roads 2005 Program. Mr. Kazmarski stated they can probably identify approximately $600,000 to $700,000 worth of work right now, and they currently have $136,000. He noted this is a start, and this is what they want to build on. He stated if the referendum is approved, and as they progress forward, they will still look at having 25% of the roads re-evaluated every single year to see how they have changed in PCI and take into consideration the cost benefit value and make their determination as to which roads they should work on and how much money can be made available.
Councilman Crowley questioned if the Town has a policy in place regarding a contractor making a cut in the road. Mr. Kazmarski stated any contractor making a roadway cut is required, by Town ordinance, to acquire a pavement excavation permit from the Town Engineer's Office. He noted it's his intention to come back before the Council with some recommendations about contractors who attempt to do this work without a permit and the resulting fine. He noted they generally ask that a bond be placed for the work, and it's usually a $2,000 bond, unless it's more extensive work, and in that case engineering may require a higher bond.
Charles Woods, 11 Westerly Drive
Thanked Mr. Kazmarski and his crew for straightening out the manhole covers on Broad Brook Road. He stated his hope this program will continue across the town as part of his PMP Program.
Mr. Woods questioned what will be done if the referendum is voted down. Chairman Tallarita stated they don't have a plan if this fails. He noted they'd have to go back to the drawing board and see what could be done.
Councilman Tait stated the Town has to get its infrastructure in shape. He noted in the past the Town didn't take care of its infrastructure.
Councilman Kaupin stated the Council is taking the step to bring this to referendum. He noted the alternative if this fails is that the work is paid for within the budget year in and year out. He stated his belief this doesn't help in the long-term planning and improving the infrastructure. He noted it's understood there's a lot of work to do now, therefore, they go out and bond, and in Enfield they have to go to referendum to bond significant dollars. He pointed out Roads 2000 was the first step in this undertaking. He added his belief they will also need a Road 2010. He stated his belief after Roads 2010, they can start to think about scaling back the major work they need to do. He raised the question of doing this work the smart way through bonding, or is it done haphazardly through a capital improvement project line item. He stated his belief this should be a well thought out plan, done in increments. He pointed out the "pay-as-you-go" method means a much larger tax increase than through a referendum.
Councilman Reveruzzi agreed with Councilman Kaupin. He feels if Road 2005 fails, they have no alternative other than looking at their next budget process since that would be the only source of capital funding they would have to pay for any road improvements. He noted if this becomes a budget item, they would then start pitting capital improvements (roads) against the school budget, recreation, etc. He feels the smart thing to do is to vote for the referendum, have a plan over the next five years to draw the money down so that the impact on tax increases is limited by the amount of money drawn down. He feels this is simple economics.
Councilman Fiore stated his belief this is a long-term vision vs. a short-term vision. He noted they cannot do this project without bonding it. He stated if they attempt to do this work out of the capital improvement budget, they would probably accomplish two or three roads per year. He noted the Town needs to make up for the lack of road maintenance over many years. He voiced his support of the referendum.
John Frangiamore, 51 Old King Street
Stated his street, as well as surrounding streets, were in the Roads 2000 list. He questioned why his road was moved onto the Road 2005 list when the money was available. He questioned what happens to his street if this referendum is defeated.
Mr. Shanley stated if this had come in at the amount that was originally projected, they would probably be able to do it, but it went out to bid and came in at a level where they don't have enough money to do that. He stated it was believed it would be best to move this into Road 2005.
Mr. Frangiamore questioned whether the contractor has been selected for his area. Mr. Shanley stated after the bids came in for this project and Green Manor Road, it was believed they didn't have enough money to complete both projects. He stated the recommendation is now to put the fully designed Section 14 into Roads 2005 and address that section first.
Chairman Tallarita stated at the very beginning of this project they made their best estimates as to what the costs will be based on the information available on the day those estimates were made. He noted as time goes on there are variables changes, i.e., cost of labor/materials. He pointed out six years ago the economy was a lot different than today.
Mr. Provencher questioned if they will still go back and do Section 14 if this referendum fails, and Chairman Tallarita responded the Town Council will have to make a decision as to whether they go forward with Section 14 because they would have to appropriate hundreds of thousands of additional dollars to complete Section 14 because the money isn't available from the 2000 referendum.
Charles Woods, 11 Westerly Drive
Stated he understands the need to bond money for the roads, however, people may not be happy with the amount the Town wants to do all in one increment.
Margaret Jedziniak, 232 Abbe Road
Stated her belief the Council wants to put forward this large amount so that the referendum will pass because if they do one group of streets in an area, then the people in the other area are not going to vote for this referendum, and they won't get it passed. She feels this is political.
Chairman Tallarita stated this isn't the case, and this is not political, but rather it's based upon need and assessment.
Councilman Fiore stated if what Ms. Jedziniak is saying is true, he would have been advocating for another neighborhood in District #4.
Joseph Saroce, Briarwood Drive
Stated his belief this referendum will dramatically increase the Town's debt. He questioned how it's expected people will pay for this. He stated his belief the per capita income in Enfield is a little over $21,000.
Mr. Shanley stated this is an $18 million dollar bonding proposal, and he is proposing a $24 million dollar total expense which allows for grants and other funds to be spent. He noted out of 169 towns in the State of Connecticut, Enfield's per capita debt was down around 140, therefore, Enfield is among the lowest per capita debt in the State of Connecticut. He emphasized Enfield's debt is very well under control.
Steve Twitchell, Longhollow Rod
Urged the Town Council to go forward because this work is very much needed.
MOTION #7347 by Councilman Fiore, seconded by Councilman Tait to take a brief recess.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #7347 adopted 10-0-0, and the meeting stood recessed at 9:37 p.m.
Chairman Tallarita reconvened the meeting at 9:43 pm.
Chairman Tallarita suggested the Council discuss the three financing options outlined by Mr. Shanley.
Councilman Mangini stated she prefers Option #2 because of the additional revenue dollars in this option.
Councilman Kaupin stated his preference to go with Option #2
Councilman Fiore stated he prefers going with Option #3 because he believes their options are limited with Option #2 over the next five or six years. He added his belief Option #3 will provide more flexibility.
Chairman Tallarita questioned the Town Manager's opinion.
Mr. Shanley expressed his preference for Option #3, however, they could make Option #2 work.
Councilman Reveruzzi stated he prefers Option #3.
Councilman Crowley stated his preference for Option #3 and pointed out that flexibility could have been used this year and it will probably be needed again in five years.
Councilmen Peruta and Edgar stated their preference to go with Option #2.
Chairman Tallarita stated he prefers Option #3.
It was the general consensus of the Council to go with Option #3.
Mr. Shanley stated in order to amend the resolutions before the Council, the Bond Counsel instructs all that is needed is to simply say, "Change all references that are $18,000,000 to $19,000,000 and all references of $22,000,000 to $24,000,000".
Councilman Fiore questioned Bond Counsel as to whether all of the resolutions have to be read in their entirety, or may the Council waive the reading. Bond Counsel, Bruce Chudwick, stated they need only read the title.
MOTION #7348 by Councilman Fiore, seconded by Councilman Mangini to waive the reading of the resolution.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #7348 adopted 10-0-0.
RESOLUTION #7349 by Councilman Mangini, seconded by Councilman Kaupin.
RESOLUTION TO APPRORIATE $22,000,000 FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR OF VARIOUS TOWN ROADS AND ROADSIDE ELEMENTS, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUE OF BONDS, NOTES OR TEMPORARY NOTES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $18,000,000, WITH THE BALANCE FUNDED BY GRANTS AND OTHER AVAILABLE FUNDS.
Note: All references to $22,000,000 are changed to $24,000,000 and references to $18,000,000 are changed to $19,000,000.
Upon a ROLL-CALL vote being taken, the Chair declared RESOLUTION #7349 adopted 9-1-0, with Councilman Edgar voting against the resolution.
MOTION #7350 by Councilman Tait, seconded by Councilman Crowley to waive the reading of the resolution.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #7350 adopted 10-0-0.
RESOLUTION #7351 by Councilman Mangini, seconded by Councilman Fiore.
RESOLUTION TO SUBMIT TO REFERENDUM THE APPROPRIATION AND BONDING RESOLUTION FOR ROAD RECONSTRUCTION.
Note: All references to $22,000,000 are changed to $24,000,000 and references to $18,000,000 are changed to $19,000,000.
Upon a ROLL-CALL vote being taken, the Chair declared RESOLUTION #7351 adopted 9-1-0, with Councilman Edgar voting against the resolution.
MOTION #7352 by Councilman Mangini, seconded by Councilman Peruta to waive the reading of the resolution.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #7352 adopted 10-0-0.
RESOLUTION #7353 by Councilman Fiore, seconded by Councilman Crowley.
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE TOWN TO PREPARE EXPLANATORY TEXT AND ADDITIONAL EXPLANATORY MATERIALS FOR THE REFERENDUM QUESTION.
Note: All references to $22,000,000 are changed to $24,000,000 and references to $18,000,000 are changed to $19,000,000.
Upon a ROLL-CALL vote being taken, the Chair declared RESOLUTION #7353 adopted 10-1-0, with Councilman Edgar voting against the resolution.
MOTION #7354 by Councilman Mangini, seconded by Councilman Tait to go into Executive Session.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #7354 adopted 10-0-0, and the meeting stood recessed at 10:15 p.m.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Executive Session of the Enfield Town Council was called to order by Chairman Tallarita at 10:16 p.m.
ROLL-CALL - Present were Councilmen Crowley, Edgar, Egan, Fiore, Kaupin, Mangini, Peruta, Reveruzzi, Tait and Tallarita. Also present were Town Manager, Scott Shanley; Town Clerk, Suzanne Olechnicki
Personnel Matters, Pending Litigation, Collective Bargaining and Real Estate Negotiations were discussed with no action or votes being taken.
Chairman Tallarita adjourned the Executive Session at 10:31 p.m. He reconvened the Special Meeting at 10:32 p.m. and stated during Executive Session they discussed Personnel Matters, Pending Litigation, Collective Bargaining, and Real Estate Negotiations with no action or votes being taken.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION #7355 by Councilman Tait, seconded by Councilman Mangini to adjourn.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #7355 adopted 10-0-0, and the meeting stood adjourned at 10:33 p.m.
| |
|