Search This Blog

Monday, October 31, 2011

Record Journal Voter Guide for Wallingford: Democratic Candidate for Mayor Vincent Testa

As published in the Record Journal Sunday October 30, 2011

imageVincent F. Testa (D)
Age: 51 Address: 15 East St.
Occupation: Mortgage broker.
Education: B.S., biology, Fairfield University.

Platform: Specific plan to target and recruit new businesses, including creation of clean energy research and development hub in industrial parks; improve technology and business operations in town government; restore paramedics and improve retention of police officers; share services between town and schools and improve public building maintenance to cut spending and ease tax burden; support schools' strategic plan.

Misc.: Town Council incumbent (fourth term) and minority leader; former Board of Education member; former substitute teacher at Dag Hammarskjold Middle School; pursuing teacher certification; board member Wallingford Symphony Orchestra, Child Guidance Clinic and Yalesville Little League; Wallingford Education Foundation golf tournament committee member; Business Network International development ambassador.

Website: www.vinnietestaformayor.com
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pages/Vinnie-Testa-for-Mayor/118934548181765

Email:
vtesta@comcast.net

Friday, October 28, 2011

Video - Jason M. Zandri (D) – Candidate for Wallingford Town Council

Jason M. Zandri (D) – Candidate for Wallingford Town Council

The Simpson Court Referendum - The difference between misinformation and outright lying

IMAG0011

Let’s first define “public parking”.

Public parking means using the lots to park your car where you do not patronize any of the adjoining businesses. You park your car in the lot and walk away from all the businesses in the area. You park and leave your car and carpool with someone else to go somewhere. That is public parking.

Parking in the lots and then going into one of the businesses – that is customer parking.

When you go to Target and park in the lot to go into the business you are leveraging customer parking. If you leave your car in the Target parking lot and go with someone into their car elsewhere you are leveraging that parking lot as if it were public parking and you could be towed in theory if they were enforcing that.

We are not discussing customer parking; that is not at issue. For these property owners to lease their spaces for people to establish businesses there they must provide some minimum level of owner, leaser, and / or customer parking.

Now onto the heart of the matter – public parking.

“135 Free PARKING SPACES”

Let’s all forget about the $500,000.00 the town is talking about investing into these private owners’ properties over the next 30 years for a moment.

On a year to year basis for DECADES the Town of Wallingford has been putting tax dollars into these properties and other private lots downtown on behalf of the tax payers in exchange for public parking use. 

This has been mainly in the form of man hours from public works; plowing and sanding in the winter and other work throughout the year.

These actions and efforts have resulted in the expenditures of tax dollars.

That means these parking spaces have not been “FREE”.

With the decision as it currently rests from the vote of the Town Council, we are planning to enter into a 30 year lease with these private property owners where Wallingford will STILL be expending monies for regular maintenance and upkeep.

In addition to that, Wallingford will be investing, solely, up to $500,000.00 into period lighting, lot resurfacing, line repainting, other structural and integrity repairs without a single dime coming from any one of the four property owners.

How is this “135 Free PARKING SPACES”?

It is coming at the cost of tax dollars expended annually and other monies in lieu of taxes for capital expenditures.  

How is this “135 Free PARKING SPACES”?

How is it that the main drivers of this and the Support Our Downtown movement are (primarily) our conservative leaders in town? The ones that will generally claim that they are fiscally responsible with our tax dollars. Where we cannot raise taxes to spend on this and that in this economy. They are the same ones that say that everyone is struggling and where the elderly who have gone without cost of living adjustments over the past couple of years cannot bare the burden of any higher taxes.

Where are all those fiscal conservatives these days?

That’s right – many of them are out there telling you to vote no and support the council’s decision to spend your tax dollars on this benefit. A benefit that the property owners will enjoy as equally as Downtown Wallingford will.

Without those property owners investing a single dime to the effort.

So you see folks the “FREE” in “135 Free PARKING SPACES” is just that for those four property owners in that all of this benefit they are getting for free.

Think about that before you go out to vote on election day Tuesday November 8th for who will represent you over the next two years

You will also need to think about whether the council decision should stand at referendum on Monday November 14th.

If you support the town investing the tax dollars in this manner then you will vote NO to maintain the Council’s decision to move forward.

If you are against this expenditure, where Wallingford foots the entire bill and the property owners spend nothing then you would need to vote YES to repeal the Council’s decision.

It’s your town – get informed and get involved.

FACEBOOK - Wallingford Parking Lot Referendum - November 14, 2011

Question: Why should Wallingford spend upwards of $500,000.00 to improve private property at your expense? Answer: IT SHOULDN'T! On November 14th, Vote "YES" to Repeal the one-sided deal!

It’s your town – get informed, get involved and VOTE on November 14th

For more information see the Wallingford Parking Lot Referendum Facebook page or go to the 500K Private Parking Deal site.

image

image

image

Walllingford - Final voter registration session set

WALLINGFORD - Registrars of voters will conduct a final voter registration session from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. Tuesday in Room 211 at the Town Hall.

After 5 p.m., voters are asked to enter the building by the automatic door at the rear left corner of the Town Hall and take the elevator to the second floor.

Registrants are required to appear in person. Voters wishing an absentee ballot are asked to contact the town clerk’s office for an application.

Completed forms are to be returned to the town clerk’s office.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Public Information Meeting PROJECT 148-202 Design Plans and Improvements to Route 68 at Route 150

There will be a meeting on Wednesday November 9th, 2011 regarding planned design improvements to Route 68 where it intersects with Route 150.

The meeting is to be held in an open forum for individual discussions with Department of Transportation officials at 6:30 in room 315 at the Wallingford Town Hall

There will be a formal presentation beginning at 7PM in room 315.

The general public is encouraged and invited to attend.

Written questions or comments can be submitted to:

Mr. Timothy M. Wilson
Manager of State Design
PO BOX 317546
Newington, CT 06131-7546

Email communications are also welcome via timothy.wilson@ct.gov

Plans are available for viewing at the Wallingford Town Hall in the Town Clerk’s office.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

FROM WALLINGFORD - The referendum on November 14

As published in the Record Journal, Sunday October 23, 2011.

citizenmike

This week’s FROM WALLINGFORD was written by Mike Brodinsky a former town councilor from Wallingford, chairman of the School Roof Building Committee, and host of public access show “Citizen Mike”

The Citizen Mike show airs on cable Channel 18 at 9 p.m. every night, except Sunday. It can also be viewed on demand at wpaa.tv. Comments or suggestions can be sent to citizenmiketv@gmail.com.

If you can’t catch the show on TV you can catch it online on their Video On Demand page.

The referendum on November 14 will decide whether the Town will spend up to $500,000 to build a parking lot in back of Simpson Court on privately-owned property the Town proposes to lease for 30 years.

The parking lot was originally proposed as an amenity. Desperate for a win at the polls, however, advocates for the project argue that this enhancement is actually a “need. ” If we do not have it, some claim, it will lead to inevitable economic decay in uptown Wallingford. That’s a scare tactic, just in time for Halloween. And, it’s quite a stretch.

To make their case, these advocates predict that the owners, without a long-term lease to the Town, would be irrational and commit financial hari-kari by preventing potential customers from parking behind Simpson Court. Their assumption is that the owners would act against their own interests, strangle commerce uptown, and be the instruments of their own demise.

The scare tacticians’ wildly speculative progression goes this way: It’s time to panic. If the Town does not build the new parking lot, the owners will opt out of their short term leases. By doing that, they take over from the Town all the costs for snowplowing, repairs, and maintenance for their property. They grow unhappy. They never expected those costs because they thought the taxpayers would assume them. In time, they come to believe that it is in their best interests to prevent the public from parking on their lots, because potential customers have become a liability. So they exclude the public and drive off their tenants’ customers and guests.

In the process, they undermine the economy of the uptown area, and the success of their own businesses. Wallingford Center is finished. That’s a wild story but it reflects their logic.

Advocates of the project also fail to explain the impact of the planning and zoning regulations, which require businesses to have public parking. Because of these regulations, this parking lot will always be a parking lot, regardless of whether the town leases it. It won’t be used for anything else. As you go to vote, also consider whether the owners should be required to pay a fair share of the construction and maintenance costs. This project increases the value of the owners’ properties, increases the rents they can charge for their commercial space, and results in bigger resale prices. The terms of the proposed leases, moreover, require the Town to assume all the costs for maintenance for 30 years. That means the owners of the properties will have avoided costs for construction and maintenance while retaining the benefits of the bargain. During the negotiations, therefore, the Town should have insisted on some contribution to reflect these financial realities.

In reply, advocates for the parking project say the owners have lost control of their lots, so it’s a fair deal. But, to make that pitch credible, we need to know why “control” is so valuable. What would the owners do with this control that makes even more financial sense than demand these leases which provide the owners with unlimited parking passes to 70 percent of the parking spaces the Town plans to create, while the town pays for, builds, and then maintains a spiffy parking lot on their properties.

The parking lot, if built, would benefit the uptown. Many would use it and experience the enhancement. If the deal, though flawed, is the best choice under the circumstances, voters should vote “no” meaning don’t override the Council’s divided vote.

On the other hand, if the project is not built, the money could be used for some other public benefit. So if the deal is too imprudent despite the benefits, voters should vote “yes” to reverse the deal. But rather than base the decision on scary tales, it should be based upon an understanding of the complexities. Either way, business in the uptown area will go on.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

One Week to Register to Vote for Municipal Elections on November 8th

Press release from Secretary of the State Denise Merrill:

For Immediate Release:                                                                            For more information:
October 25, 2011                                                                                        Av Harris: (860) 509-6255
                                                                                     Cell: (860) 463-5939
-Press Release-
Merrill: One Week to Register to Vote for Municipal Elections on November 8th
Secretary of the State Reminds Voters Registration forms Must be Postmarked by Today, In-Person Registration Deadline is 8:00 P.M. Tuesday November 1st 

Hartford:  Secretary of the State Denise Merrill today is reminding Connecticut voters who wish to register by mail that voter registration forms must be postmarked no later than today in order to cast a ballot in the upcoming municipal elections on Tuesday November 8, 2011.  Eligible voters who wish to register in-person may do so at their Registrar of Voters office until 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday November 1st to qualify for the Municipal Elections.

“The municipal elections to decide who will serve in some key decision making roles in your community are approaching very fast, so I urge adult citizens of Connecticut to make sure they are registered now,” said Secretary Merrill, Connecticut’s chief election official.  “Crucial decisions on town and city budgets, schools, infrastructure and environmental policy are facing many towns in our state.  Make sure you have a voice by registering to vote by next Tuesday at 8:00 p.m.” 

Polls will open statewide from 6:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday November 8, 2011, when the majority of Connecticut’s municipalities will hold a General Election for municipal candidates.  Absentee ballots are also available, voters can go online to www.sots.ct.gov to download an application for an absentee ballot or a voter registration card, see if they are registered and where their polling place is located and see the ballot for their town and city.  Today is also the last day write-in candidates wishing to run in the Municipal elections can register with the Secretary of the State’s office.  Registration forms for write-in candidates must be received by the Secretary of the State by 4:00 p.m. today. 




Av Harris
Director of Communications
Connecticut Secretary of the State Denise Merrill
(860) 509-6255 ofc
(860) 463-5939 cell

From Wallingford’s Democratic mayoral candidate:

New ideas to move Wallingford forward

As published in the Record Journal, Saturday October 22, 2011

clip_image002

By Vinnie Testa

I am confident that, based on my record, experience and vision for Wallingford, I am the best person, today, to lead our community through the current tough times and ensure we emerge stronger and better prepared for the future.

I respect Mayor Dickinson and commend him for his service. I also believe, however, that we have failed to move forward. Our Grand List has dropped, our operations are inefficient, our facilities are crumbling and we are cutting critical services to balance our budgets. We need a new approach.

I have specific plans for Wallingford that will: reduce expenses by modernizing how we do business while sharing services between the town and Board of Education; recruit new high-tech businesses to rebuild our tax base; and improve public safety by restoring critical paramedic services and strengthening our police force by retaining the officers we pay so much to train.

Over 30 years ago, our previous mayors had the vision to develop our industrial parks. That resulted in the tax base that allowed us to maintain our schools, provide services and spend on improving facilities and parks, while keeping tax rates very favorable compared to other towns. What’s been missing since then, however, is planning for continued economic development, facility maintenance and, as we all know, modernizing the way government operates. We cannot sustain the quality of life in this community without attracting new tax dollars and running our operations more efficiently to cut costs.

I have a specific plan to bring new businesses to town. I spent over 25 years in sales and business development. I know how to target industries and negotiate to establish partnerships.

I envision establishing Wallingford as a clean energy research and manufacturing center. I’ve spoken with people that provide venture capital to new start-up companies looking to set up shop.
What better place than our own Silicon Valley for synergistic businesses that are pioneers in a cutting-edge field? This will rebuild our tax base and provide good jobs for our children, who we need to stay and raise their families here.

It’s time we took a close look at how our departments operate. I will do that and identify where we can save money and do things smarter. In our labor negotiations, it’s time we got creative and bargained in good faith. Lost arbitrations waste money.

How many of you work for a company that does business as it did in 1990? We can save time and money by offering online bill payments and access to more information. We can reduce the cost of government through the smart use of technology. Sharing services between the town and Board of Education will free up people to do work we now contract out at great expense.

I helped develop our school system’s Strategic Plan. What I will do to increase our tax base and cut costs will provide the resources to implement that plan and stop the cycle of teacher layoffs.

I was born and raised in Wallingford. When my boys were growing up, I coached them in baseball, basketball, soccer and lacrosse. I was a Cub Scout Den Leader, and I’ve taught catechism for 20 years.

I served eight years on the Board of Education and two on the Wetlands Commission. I am in my eighth year as a Town Councilor. I’ve served on many boards and charities. I want to preserve the strong sense of community in our great town.

It’s time for new ideas. It’s time we moved forward. I’m Vinnie Testa, and not only do I approve this message, I am this message. Thank you!

Monday, October 24, 2011

WHA calls lawyer after getting draft audit

Board reviews Nere’s status, holes in records

As published in the Record Journal, Saturday October 22, 2011

By Robert Cyr
Record-Journal staff
rcyr@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224

WALLINGFORD
— Public housing officials are consulting with their attorney to determine whether a draft audit of Wallingford Housing Authority finances could warrant removal of its longtime director, Stephen Nere, according to Chairman Michael Misiti.

The authority released draft results of the forensic audit this week. The WHA operates 317 low- and moderate-income rental units and has an annual operating budget of about $1.5 million. The Housing Authority is funded by tenant rental payments, state grants, and federal assistance administered by state agencies. The state also holds mortgage debt on Housing Authority properties. Besides meeting with its attorney regarding Nere, the Housing Authority board is reviewing the audit report and deciding if further investigation will be requested from the auditing firm that was hired to look for unusual items in financial records, Misiti said. Nere was not available for comment Friday. Since the board approved conducting an audit in May, it has rejected two requests by Nere to have the authority buy out the rest of his contract, which is due to expire next year. Nere, 60, has been executive director for 26 years and makes $100,000 a year.

Misiti said he could not confirm whether Nere had recently requested another buyout.

“We’re not in negotiations with him right now, but I would think so,” he said.

The audit was formally requested by the Tenant Council earlier this year and later approved by the board to investigate allegations of mismanagement at the authority, which has been embroiled in controversy for more than a year.

Although the audit was approved in May and was expected to take several weeks, holes in financial records and problems with accounting software delayed the work by several months and ultimately made it impossible for the auditor to fully investigate the books, Misiti said.

According to the report, the authority was “not fully using the financial software general ledger function and therefore general ledger activity was not available” for 2006 and 2007. For fiscal year 2008, the auditor found ledger balance reports, but “the trial balance amounts did not reflect activity in a format that would allow the type of analysis we would normally perform.”

The report adds that “without a balanced and complete general ledger, we were unable to review the Authority’s financial activity to identify items that may be considered unusual or would be identified for further analysis.”

Misiti said the board will ask the auditor to explain the unavailability of the records needed to complete a full analysis. Because the authority is required by state housing officials to audit its finances every year, records would be needed for that purpose, he said.

“Was it not available, or was it not available in the manner that he wanted it?” he said. “There are definitely some things that look like there’s a problem. Let’s say the ledgers are not available, in electronic or paper form. That absolutely says someone’s hiding something. Without complete ledgers there’s no way you can add up the numbers.”

Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. said the town has no direct oversight of the authority, but if criminal charges were to arise from the audit, they would begin with a criminal complaint brought to the Wallingford Police Department.

“Any inability to complete an audit is extremely unfortunate,” he said. “We all have to show details of what we’ve done and how we’ve done it as to the use of money.”

The $12,000 audit was conducted by Farmington accounting firm Kostin, Ruffkess & Co., with a $15,000 spending cap in case further work was requested. The board asked the firm to study records for three years.

While looking into money given to Housing Authority employees during that time, auditors found two instances in which an advance was given to a worker for a housing conference, but there was no documentation for the expenses or expected refund of the advance, if due. “In one instance only the hotel bill was attached to the travel voucher form and that amount was less than the advance,” according to the report. The report also finds that the authority paid employees $50 a day for meals while at conferences of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, but could find no examples in which meals were not included at similar association events. “We recommend that the Authority revisit this practice as it relates to local conferences since the use of advances is not a common practice for municipal entities,” the report states. The report also found that there was no procedure for a bidding process for vendor services and some services were awarded without a written contract or description of work performed.

Auditor Joseph Centofanti wrote that he began with a forensic evaluation of the authority completed in November in order to avoid duplicating investigations of accounting practices. The evaluation last year made more than 50 recommendations to tighten the authority’s recordkeeping and procedures. Many of those recommendations were immediately taken up by the board, including locking up checkbooks and keeping a three-part receipt book.
Centofanti was not available for comment.

The recent audit is not the first time Nere has been linked with financial problems. For the past two years, Nere has filed his housing budget after the June 30 deadline with the state, on the last day of two 30day extensions.

According to court documents, two credit card companies won judgments against Nere personally last year, and he has been ordered to pay $78,392.84. Another company, whose case is pending, seeks $53,498.33.

In August, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development completed an investigation into Nere when it found he had used, with board approval, more than $700 to pay his personal lawyer in an unspecified lawsuit. Nere was not required to return the money, but was warned not to repeat the error.

HUD’s connection to the WHA is through the state Department of Economic and Community Development, which disburses federal funds to McKenna Court, a 30-unit housing complex for senior citizens. HUD officials did not return calls.

Nere is appointed and serves at the will of the Housing Authority board of commissioners, whose five members are appointed by the Town Council. While members can be removed by the council, only the housing board can terminate the executive director for cause without violating his contract. The housing board, however, has been mired in controversy for the past year and only one current member, Thomas Mezzei, was on the board during the years investigated by the auditor. Earlier this year, two longtime Republican members who served on the board during the three years, Robert Prentice and Patrick Monahan, resigned within a day of each other.

Mezzei, the only Democrat on the board then, said he thought there was enough in the draft report to fire Nere for cause.

“We never spent much time then and our meetings didn’t even last an hour,” he said. “They just always just did what they wanted, and it was four against one. Right now, little by little, we’re trying to get to the end of the road.”

Prentice, chairman of the Republican Town Committee, had served 25 years on the board when he quit in February. He later said it was to spend more time with his family and to avoid the political infighting on the board and scrutiny from concerned town councilors. He was not available for comment. The Connecticut Housing Finance Authority, which manages mortgage debt at the WHA, has received the audit, but would not be involved in any potential action that stems from the report, said CHFA spokeswoman Lisa Kidder.

Saturday, October 22, 2011

CRAIG FISHBEIN - Why I Support the Referendum

Why I Support the Referendum by Craig C. Fishbein
As originally published on the CRAIG FISHBEIN for TOWN COUNCIL website.


image

As a matter of principle, I am opposed to government picking winners and losers. It is for that reason that I opposed the GM bailouts, as well as those that were given to AIG. Similarly, in recent months, Wallingford made a decision for the town to pay for the restructuring and re-paving of the 130 parking spaces in the rear of Simpson Court, and for the following reasons, on November 14th, I am voting "YES" to repeal the parking deal that was recently approved by the Wallingford Town Council.

In addition to the re-paving, the town will also install cobblestoned pavement in the alleyways, decorative lighting, as well as dumpster enclosures, and it would assume the ongoing maintenance of the lot, including trash and snow removal, plus electricity to light the lot, and the property owner's insurance bills for the lot's safety. All of the above, in exchange for a thirty year lease for public parking in the lot, with this municipal parking being limited to four hour slots (for some).

The town has currently committed to expend up to $500,000.00 for the above, that figure having doubled in just the past two years (as recently as 2008 the estimated costs were only $250,000.00).

Yes, the plan would more than likely be of benefit to the merchants in Simpson Court, however, here comes the rub: while privately owned by four entities, the property owners are not paying anything for the improvements to their property; there are no additional spots being added to the lot (which is already being fully used); and the property owners are being given 90 passes to be given to people of their choosing that exempt the holder from the four hour parking restriction (the town is not monitoring to whom the passes are being given). Additionally, the town is prohibited from metering the lot so as to re-coup their expenses from the actual users.

Please note that all of this has occurred while the Wooding Caplan property (one that the town actually owns) remains vacant, overrun by weeds, virtually unlit, marked by ditches that used to be potholes, and the town was recently forced to sell the American Legion Building right next to the Town Hall because it could not find the approximately $25,000.00 to fix the roof and to repaint it.

It is true that the funds for the initial infrastructure improvements come from a fund that is held by the town, paid by the electric division in lieu of taxes, that can only be used for capital projects. However, in my opinion, that is just a "shell game" as this past year, as well as last, there were capital projects in the town budget that could have been paid for with the funds that are being expended on this project. In both of the past years, there were tax increases to pay for those capital projects.

In fact, this year it is estimated that the town will be issuing bonds for in excess of 25 million dollars for new school roofs. The annual interest alone on this project will be about $500,000.00 (the amount that is being expended on this project, with no financial buy in by the property owners).

The property owners have countered with threats that, unless the town redoes their lot, that they will shut it down to municipal traffic. In my opinion, while they threaten to become the manufacturers of tumbleweeds, the same property owners would be shooting themselves in the foot.

In order to operate a business, a merchant needs a certain amount of parking. In order to continue to rent to their merchant tenants, the property owners would have to allow someone to use the lot. In order to come through with their threat the property owners would have to monitor the lot for those parking there that were not patronizing the owner’s property. I highly doubt that that would ever happen.

Here, the property owners are stating that they are in the center of town, and therefore that they deserve preferential treatment. Maybe that is true. However, in many other towns, those who demand preferential treatment pay higher taxes. It is for that reason that other towns have downtown tax zones. While I am not in favor of such a proposition, I can see how they come about, especially when private property owners try to hold their own town hostage.

I have proposed that the property owners contribute a portion of funds for the initial infrastructure improvements. My suggestion has been $50,000.00 liens on their properties, payable when the properties are sold or ten years (whichever comes sooner), accruing interest at 4.5% per year. That, in my opinion would be at least somewhat fair.

The cost savings to the town could be put into improving the Wooding Caplan property for increased parking in our downtown. In my opinion, that would be of best benefit to the town of Wallingford. Additionally, the parking passes should be issued by the town to the individual users. It is not the re-doing of the parking lot that I object to, rather it is the deal that has been struck. Therefore, on November 14th I will be voting "YES" to repeal the terms of the current lease as, next time, it needs to be negotiated with the whole of the town of Wallingford in mind.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

North Farms Co 7 Volunteer Fire Dept. Open House October 22nd

North Farms Co 7 Volunteer Fire Department is celebrating 65 Years of Service at their Open House on October 22nd from 3pm to 6pm






Wednesday, October 19, 2011

THE LINES ARE DRAWN IN WALLINGFORD — AND SO ARE THE SIGNS

As published in the Recrod Journal, Tuesday October 18, 2011

By Robert Cyr
Record-Journal
staff
(203) 317-2224

WALLINGFORD
— As a referendum to overturn a Town Council decision draws near, signs are literally pointing to more businesses supporting a controversial deal the town has made to spruce up a downtown parking lot in return for 30 years of free parking.

In August, the council agreed to enter into a lease agreement with the property owners of four downtown buildings at Simpson Court, along North Main Street, to spend up to a half million dollars to repave and refurbish the lot in return for free public parking.
A day after the council’s decision, a petition drive was started by resident Robert Gross, who collected enough signatures to force a referendum, which is scheduled for Nov. 14. Two political action committees formed — one supporting and one against the plan — and the opposing signs have quickly become ubiquitous throughout town.

“People are starting to understand how this is going to benefit the town of Wallingford,” said Christopher Diorio, head of the “Support Our Downtown” committee.

Diorio, also vice chairman of the Republican Town Committee, said 18 signs have gone up in the windows of local businesses, out of the 290 signs
he’s given out. The vast majority have gone to residents for posting on their lawns. The signs are paid for by donations to the political action committee, although businesses have also made donations, he said.

“At least a dozen businesses approached us, but we approached some, too,” he said.

One business owner, however, has stood apart from the otherwise heavy
support among downtown businesses for the parking deal. Christian Rao, owner of Cafe Ra at 350 Center St., is close enough to the parking lot to reap the benefits of pedestrian traffic but said he has to explain to countless customers why he is against the town’s investing money in private property.

Signs that urge a “Yes” vote ask to overturn the lease, while a “No” vote keeps it in place.

“A lot of them don’t understand the situation because it’s confusing with the ‘yes’ and the ‘no’,” Rao said. “I stress to them it’s not that I don’t want parking downtown, I just don’t think it’s the best solution. I have an issue with restrictions and I have an
issue with our businesses not contributing.”

The lease stipulates that business owners will be able to give out up to 90 parking passes to their employees to use any of the planned 130 parking spaces for more than four hours. Public parking will be restricted to four hours.

Varying configurations of property owners have been in a year-to-year lease agreement with the town since 1961 to provide free parking in return for lot maintenance. Owner disillusionment with the quality of maintenance, however, led to the current lease agreement. Annual revenue
from the Wallingford Electric Division will pay for upgrades to the lot, with plans for trees and lighting.

Christine Rinere, owner of The Dressing Room at 3 N. Main St., said she does not live in town but looked into the issue more closely when her customers had more and more questions about signs at other businesses. After researching, Rinere said she was in favor of the lease and put up her sign.

“I thought it was good for downtown; it was not costing anyone anything, it was not taking anything away from anybody and that to me sounded like a win-win,” she said.

Business owners along Simpson Court with signs supporting the lease, including the Half Moon Cafe and Body and Soul Day Spa, were not available for comment Monday.

Geno Zandri, chairman of the PAC “Citizens Against Private Parking Deal,” said that while only one downtown business was with the opposition, hundreds of residents have asked to put “Yes: Repeal the Lease” signs on their lawns. Business owners would clearly support the lease, he said.

“They’re hoping that if that lot gets fixed, they’re next in line to get theirs fixed,” he said. “And wouldn’t that be a sweetheart deal?”

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Wallingford 2011 Elections - Q&A for candidates set at two forums this week

This story originally ran in the Record Journal on Wednesday October 12, 2011 under the title “Q&A for candidates set at two forums next week”

In the instances where the article reads “next week” please remember that it will be referring to THIS WEEK Wednesday October 19 and Thursday October 20.

By Russell Blair
Record-Journal staff
rblair@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2225


WALLINGFORD —
Voters will have a chance to hear candidates for mayor, Town Council and Board of Education at two candidate forums next week.

On Wednesday, council candidates will answer questions from students from Sheehan and Lyman Hall high schools and local reporters, with a similar forum Thursday for the mayoral and school board candidates. Both are scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. in the Town Hall Council Chambers.

The forums are being sponsored by the Wallingford Community Women.

“This gives people an opportunity to learn more about candidates,” member Jeanne McFarland said. “This is a chance to ask specific questions. It’s a more informal opportunity to get information.”

Republican Town Committee Chairman Robert Prentice said the forums are a valuable opportunity for candidates, too.

“This is a chance for everybody to say what they have to say,” Prentice said. “All the signs in the world don’t tell anybody about the candidates.”

The forums will be taped and broadcast on WPAA-TV in the weeks before the election.

Democratic Town Chairman Vincent Avallone said forums are good for newer candidates who aren’t familiar with the political process.

“For newer candidates, this makes a big difference,” he said.

Avallone said some candidates are nervous about being on television, but are excited to get their message across.

Prentice said he expects the entire Republican slate to be present both nights. Avallone said the only absence he was expecting was Valerie Ford, a school board candidate who has a work commitment.

McFarland said her organization — formerly the Wallingford Junior Woman’s Club — has helped run the event with the League of Women Voters before, but this year’s forum is the first time it has sponsored the event alone.

Candidates will be allowed two minutes to respond to questions from the panel. Each candidate will answer eight to 10 questions. At the end, each candidate will be allowed three minutes to summarize their platform.

The council forum is divided into segments, with Democratic candidates Nick Economopoulos, Don Harwood and Robin Hettrick and Republican candidates Vincent Cervoni, Craig Fishbein and Tom Laffin answering questions beginning at 7 p.m., and Democrats Debi Reynolds, John Sullivan and Jason Zandri joining Republicans John Le-Tourneau, Robert Parisi and Rosemary Rascati at 8 p.m.

Thursday’s forum will begin with school board Democrats Kathy Castelli and Jay Cei pairing up with Republicans Tanya Bachand, Michael Brooder and Christine Mansfield at 7 p.m., followed by David Leonardo, Patrick Reynolds and Michael Votto representing the Democrats, joined by Republicans Joe Marrone, Roxane McKay and Chet Miller at 8 p.m. The mayoral forum will follow at 9 p.m. with Democrat Vincent Testa Jr. and Republican Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr.

FROM WALLINGFORD – Hey kids, it’s time to show up

As originally published in the Record Journal Sunday, September 27th, 2009

It was also cross posted to my personal blog – From the Mind of Jason Zandri

The item regarding the Charter Revision vote is out of date and no longer relevant but the rest of it as timely as it ever was.

Jason From Wallingford

According to some research I have done recently, in the 2008 Presidential election the number of Wallingford peo­ple registered to vote aged 18 to 30 that came out and voted was about 2,800.

For people aged 60 to 72 that number was a little more than 4,000.

Both age sets encompass a span of 12 years.

In 2008, 22,000 of the nearly 26,000 reg­istered voters in Wallingford generated an 85 percent voter turnout rate.

In the 2007 local election the number of people aged 18 to 30 that came out to vote in Wallingford was about 500.

Of the nearly 4,200 people aged 18 to 30 that were registered to vote only 500 showed up—that is a paltry 12 percent.

For people aged 60 to 72 that number was about 2,800 out of 4,700 or 60 per­cent.

When we talk about the impact for bet­ter or worse of the largest voting block the discussion always focuses around the older folks but it is not just because they are larger in size (as they are so by only about 500 voters) but rather due to the fact that they show up in greater numbers. In order to get to 2,800 voters showing up in a voter block for the 2007 local elec­tion you have to include everyone aged 18 to 47 — a bracket of 29 years.

That is a total of 11,400 registered vot­ers to yield the same 2,800 turnouts.

Let me say it again— you have to lever­age 11,400 registered voters from the 18 to 47 demographic to get the same turn out number of people aged 60 to 72 where 2,800 out of 4,700 showed up.

2,800 people aged 60 to 72 out of 4,700 is 60 percent.

2,800 people aged 18 to 47 out of 11,400 is 25 percent.

I understand that the numbers in total drop below 50 percent for local elections; in 2007 voter turnout was 46 percent.

The reason for this is mainly due to the younger generation of people not show­ing up.

This is especially concerning tome as a parent of four little children. At 40 years old I am in with a group of people that seem not to be willing to take control of their own destiny for themselves or their families.

Say whatever you want about how you can’t change things, politics is all dirty and it caters only to this group or that group or whatever— it becomes a self ful­filling prophecy when you don’t show up to vote.

I feel that local elections impact you more than any other election you could participate in. All the voters are from Wallingford, there is no other election that you could have a greater impact on by just voting.

In a Presidential election you are cast­ing your important vote among millions of others; in Wallingford it is one vote of about 12,000 or so.

Your locally elected officials directly af­fect everything from what you are charged in taxes by way of the budget and what allocations get handed off to support the schools that your children are attend­ing and so on. They provide the platform and funding for or removing it from all the local services you may use.

There are many changes offered to the voters in the 2009 election from the in­cumbents that are running for office again to all the newcomers throwing their hats into the ring.

There are changes being proposed to the Town Charter. This document dic­tates the guidelines of how elected offi­cials are to discharge their duties in serv­ice to you and the town and it is the first time any changes are being offered in 18 years.

You as a voter directly get your say as you get the opportunity to vote “yes” or “no” to each of the proposed changes.

Democracy at its best— all you need to do is show up.

Letters to the Editor regarding Simpson Court Parking

These are the letters to the editor of the Record Journal regarding the Simpson Court Parking issue as published on Tuesday October 18, 2011


Equal Investment

Editor: Steven Knight wrote regarding the Simpson Court parking lot issue that it will be “Thirty years before any investment the town makes would convey to them” (private property owners). If the town spends $500,000 in tax money that improves the value of the property, the owners could market and sell (with the lease restrictions) for more than it is worth presently because repairs and upgrades will have been done with the tax dollars. If this is such a great deal, Wallingford and the property owners both should make an equal investment.

Visit 500kparkingdeal.com. Get the facts and vote November 14.
JASON ZANDRI, WALLINGFORD  



Bad decision

Editor: Concerning the owners of the land and buildings on Simpson Court in Wallingford: All the owners have been charging and taking in lease/rent money from their tenants for years if not decades: restaurants, real estate companies, spas, retail stores, etc. — that is their right. Their privately-owned land behind their privately-owned buildings has been in need of repairs and maintenance for a long time. These owners have had and still have the responsibility to address needed repairs, and pay for them. A safe, well lit, pothole-free parking area is a necessity. The owners have failed all parties, except themselves — and for what reasons? (More profits, no responsibility?) And they want us to pick up the tab.

Town money used for this project, whether it be taken from the Electric, Water/Sewer Division or any department, is taxpayers’ money, not money to be used for private property enhancement.

The town can still lease a strip of the area going from Center Street across to Church Street, maintain it properly and continue to allow public use. Have any of the building and land owners come forth with a plan to pool some of their “profits” and have their property repaired? I doubt it.

It’s really so simple: they own, they should pay, as we taxpayers pay for our home improvements. If they haven’t come forth and will not come forth, then vote “yes” to repeal this very bad decision made by our mayor and council.

KATHY AVERY, WALLINGFORD



Knows better?


Editor: With regard to the letter from a Wallingford council person (R-J, 10-8), I would like to make one small point: Not one — not one — of the people involved in the current referendum, nor the referendum concerning the Wooding-Caplan property, was in any way, shape or form, involved in the referendum on the location of the Park and Recreation facility — an effort so poorly organized, and orchestrated that not even then members of the Park and Rec Commission, nor members of the then Council, can even remember it. Had any of the people currently active in exercising their civil rights (and duties) been involved, we can all be assured that Park and Rec would never have been located on the outskirts of Wallingford (where many of those most in need of it can’t easily get to it), but rather in town (old Simpson School property?) where it belonged.

While government almost always thinks it knows better than the people, it very often doesn’t.
ROXANNE MCINTYRE, WALLINGFORD
 


One-sided
terms

Editor: Like Alfred E. Neuman, the supporters of the Simpson Court parking scheme would have the public say, “What, me worry?” about the funds that are being spent to improve and make safe the rear Simpson Court lot.

“Don’t worry,” they say, “these are electric division funds!” Not true. These funds were paid to the town by the electric division, in lieu of their paying taxes, and these are town funds to be used on capital projects of the town. “The assessed values of the properties will go up, and therefore we will get more tax dollars!” Not true, either. There has never been a report to the Town Council that the assessed values will go up, and the mayor himself has questioned that representation. “But, with the lease, it is not really private property.” Not really true, either. There are 130 parking spaces planned to be in the lot and, under the lease, the four property owners are being given 90 parking passes for people of their choosing (instead of the town monitoring to whom the passes are given). “The property owners can’t afford to pay anything to light or to help make their property safe!” Since when is it the role of our local government to pay to make other people’s property safe? When and where does this slippery slope ever end?

Isn’t this just like the bailouts of GM and AIG? Why isn’t this money being used to add additional parking (at least temporarily) or possibly even lighting, to the town-owned Wooding-Caplan property? Why couldn’t we use a portion of these funds to rehabilitate the American Legion building, (which is also owned by the town)? Please don’t be fooled by the misrepresentations. The terms of this deal
are so one-sided and unfair! RHONDA B. FISHBEIN, WALLINGFORD

 

Public money


Editor: Our mayor and town council have once again shown their disdain for the taxpayers of Wallingford by essentially giving 500K in public money to the private investors that own Simpson Court buildings so that they may improve their property while getting nothing in return. The leasing arrangement that dates back over 40 years has always been a bad deal, and now it is even worse. The town gets to maintain the parking lot area (repairs, snow removal, etc.) for the next 30 years, all in exchange for calling 30 spaces “municipal parking.“ It has never been demonstrated that these parking spaces are usually used by anyone other than customers of Simpson Court businesses. Additionally, it sets a poor precedent that will permit the mayor to implement his stated goal of replicating this deal with other building owners who have parking lots in need of improvement in the uptown/downtown area. Add this $500K to the other $10 million in off-budget spending planned this year, and the “good times keep rolling” in
Wallingford. This must stop! PAUL CIARDULLO SR., WALLINGFORD
 


Bunk


Editor: Don’t be fooled by a lot of double-talk and “save our town” bunk! Simply put: the town council voted (9/13) to spend one-half million dollars of your hard-earned taxpayer money to upgrade the parking lot behind Simpson Court between the bank and the Masonicowned building — money coming from the Electric Division. Question: your electric rate go up recently? This property is privately owned! This decision could possibly open up Pandora’s Box. What’s to prevent any other private enterprise in Wallingford from “demanding” to have their lot upgraded, as well?

A number of taxpayers have already asked me the same question: How ‘bout fixing up my lot? Come on, get in line for a great deal — the town’s picking up the tab.

My understanding, based on what I’m told, is that three of four properties in question may be up for sale; but if that happens to be so, I’m sure they’ll hold off, awaiting the free taxpayer-funded upgrade in order to get an enhanced price for their property. Vote a resounding Y-E-S to prevent this nightmare from happening! It’s your money. Talk about “facts! The above facts are worth pondering.

Also, voting day for the referendum is the 14th of November. Mark your calendar. Voting places have also been changed. You should receive
notification in the mail. ROBERT HOGAN, WALLINGFORD

Monday, October 17, 2011

Senior voters are a bloc to reckon with in November

As published in the Record Journal, Monday October 10, 2011

By Robert Cyr
Record-Journal staff
rcyr@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224


WALLINGFORD —
Voters 70 and older outnumber voters 18 to 30 years old, and that may weigh heavily in the campaign styles of the two candidates for mayor.

Of 24,603 registered voters in Wallingford, 4,352 are 70 or older and 3,400 are 18 to 30.

Just under half of the older voters — 1,999 — are unaffiliated, 1,518 are Democrats and 835 are Republicans. Among voters between 18 and 30, 2,122 are unaffiliated, 845 are Democrats, and 433 are registered Republicans.

Republican Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr., 64, the second- longest serving mayor in the state, is running against Democratic Town Councilor Vincent Testa Jr., a 51-year-old substitute teacher. It’s the second time Testa has run for the office; he lost a lopsided contest to Dickinson in 1997.

Testa said he knows the voter statistics and agrees that many planks in his platform came about because of the concerns of seniors, many of whom are on fixed incomes and worried about cuts in services. He said he has recently visited Ashlar Village, a retirement community, and the Wallingford Senior Center.

Late last year, Dickinson caused controversy when he trimmed paramedic service to meet union arbitration award costs.

“That’s a very critical issue to them,” Testa said. “And they’re also very concerned about taxes. My message to them is that I’m working to reverse that trend we’re in right now of cutting services. Historically, older folks vote more consistently, especially in local elections.”

According to Democratic Registrar of Voters Samuel Carmody, total unaffiliated voters as of Friday outnumbered Democrats and Republicans combined, with 12,909 unaffiliated, 4,462 Republican
and 7,202 Democratic. Thirty voters are registered as “other.”
Dickinson said he was not aware of the uneven distribution of voters by age. He said party affiliation and age of voters have no effect on his overall message.

“We really try to reach all voters,” he said. “While being on a fixed income has its own drawbacks, there’s also a concern for the younger person who can’t find employment. All of the aspects of the economy are driven by how many people are working. They’re all interlocked, and each is a piece of a bigger problem. Everyone has his or her challenge in general; I’m not sure it’s limited to one age group or another.”

Friday, October 14, 2011

FROM WALLINGFORD - Bond ratings and perspective

As published in the Record Journal, Sunday October 9, 2011.

citizenmike

This week’s FROM WALLINGFORD was written by Mike Brodinsky a former town councilor from Wallingford, chairman of the School Roof Building Committee, and host of public access show “Citizen Mike”

The Citizen Mike show airs on cable Channel 18 at 9 p.m. every night, except Sunday. It can also be viewed on demand at wpaa.tv. Comments or suggestions can be sent to citizenmiketv@gmail.com.

If you can’t catch the show on TV you can catch it online on their Video On Demand page.

The Town’s credit or bond rating comes up during every municipal political campaign season. And it should. A good rating is a sign of financial strength. It’s a legitimate credential, measure of the Town’s financial wellbeing and ability to pay off debt. Wallingford has the best bond rating possible. Let’s not minimize that. The bond rating is a source of civic pride. Fair enough. Let’s give credit where credit is due. But let’s not overdo it and stretch the meaning of a great bond rating beyond the breaking point.

A bond rating can be a misused lethal political weapon. It should not be the ultimate argument to end all political arguments about all management decisions. Misused claims about a bond rating are no better than bumper sticker logic. A great bond rating is not proof that all decisions are sound or even businesslike. It is not a fair report card on everything, or even a report card on a term of office.

It doesn’t measure the business wisdom, for example, of passing up more than $500,000 in state grants, which is what Wallingford did in 2010 when it failed to approve the Incentive Housing Zone (IHZ) plan. If that had been approved, the zoning regulations would have provided a great opportunity for growth in the Grand List and downtown revitalization by private investment. A great bond rating doesn’t measure the business acumen of offering to reconstruct, at public expense of up to $500,000, the Simpson Court parking area, owned privately but which may be leased to the town for 30 years. This plan would transfer significant benefits to the adjacent property owners, including reduced maintenance expenses. The Town, however, did not get a dime from them as either a contribution towards construction, or a contribution towards maintenance, insurance, repairs, or snowplowing the property. Adding together the IHZ and Simpson Court issues and I’m up to a million dollars. Sooner or later we’ll reach real money.

The bond rating isn’t an approval of an embarrassingly backward policy on not using technology to either streamline operations or to provide reasonable public services. It doesn’t measure the degree of humanity, or inhumanity, caused by the reduction of paramedic service in the face of such crowed-about financial strength. It doesn’t bless the drop in the Grand List two years in a row, or the management decisions that resulted in significant operating deficits in the last two years out of three, which deficits aggregate about $1.2 million.

The bond rating doesn’t endorse the business judgment behind a ideologically driven labor relations strategy that calls for binding arbitration with unions, when the results of that strategy keep producing one expensive adverse result after another.

So why was the bond rating upgraded to AAA? CRRA, the former trash plant operator, recently distributed to the Town about $12 million. That makes Wallingford more credit worthy and the money is added security that Wallingford can repay debt.

Additionally, Wallingford has been in a sweet financial spot not created by any recent decision of any public official. The Town is not burdened with a decaying and costly inner city that some other cities and towns have. Wallingford has benefitted from yearly payments from CRRA, and more recently from Covanta who now runs the trash plant.

Wallingford has been getting paid big bucks on account of the new power lines. But most importantly, over the years, the Town has had the Electric Division, which pumps about $2 million per year into the Town’s capital projects fund. This means the Town can use cash and not borrow as much for capital projects. Repeat this benefit year after year — a benefit other towns do not have — and we better have a darn good bond rating.

These sweet circumstances could turn lots of mayors into triple AAA managers. We have a good bond rating. And let’s keep a realistic perspective about it.

Article posted on Examiner.com

by Maggie DellaRocco – Griffin
Hartford Business Networking Examiner

Wallingford Resident Jason Zandri is running for Wallingford Town Council – 2011

Continue reading on Examiner.com

Wallingford Resident Jason Zandri is running for Wallingford Town Council - 2011 - Hartford business networking | Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/business-networking-in-hartford/wallingford-resident-jason-zandri-is-running-for-wallingford-town-council-2011#ixzz1abdYRlCV

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Letter to the editor - A few facts

NOTE FROM ME - This letter to the editor was submitted by current Town Councilor Rosemary Rascati and was published in the Record Journal on Saturday October 8. 

Political letters to the editor after Labor Day are supposed to be limited to 100 words or less. By the paper’s own admission, an error was made allowing Rosemary’s piece to run at the 300 word standard limit.

I wrote a full reply to this submission that the paper will not publish; they admit the error and take full responsibility but they are going to continue to re-enforce the standard of 100 words or less for political letters and letters from candidates.

While I think an equal response is fair and warranted given the fact that an error was made on one side of the argument, I understand the paper’s position on trying to maintain the original intent of the directive of limiting political letters to 100 words or less.

I am going to work on my 100 word response but in the meantime my full response to this will be posted on my Jason Zandri for Wallingford Town Council blog and an expanded version will be online at The Post-Chronicle as they allow for 500 word submission.

 

Editor: I would like to make public a few facts about the parking lot behind Simpson Court that may not be common knowledge: The same group of nay-sayers now forcing a referendum is the same group that has been asking Wallingford’s mayor and Town Council about the status of this same parking lot and “why is it taking so long to repair?”

This same group forced a referendum on the Wooding/Caplan property and, as a consequence, the Town has lost many thousands of dollars in potential property tax payments. Now they advocate that Wooding/Caplan be used for parking. Isn’t this a bit short-sighted since we may be needing it for a new police station? Or perhaps they will then suggest that the Town buy another lot.

This same group also forced a referendum on the purchase of the Parks and Rec building some years back. This was defeated and now we enjoy a beautiful and busy recreation facility. Every time we have a referendum, it costs the town at least $30,000. Parking is valuable and essential to a vibrant downtown. If the various owners of the subject properties decide that their lots will be private, it will be a loss to the general public.

The owners will have no control over these properties for the next 30 years. In its present condition, should someone fall and be hurt in this lot, the Town of Wallingford could be held liable. Funds for this project come from the Electric Division and can only be used for capital improvements. It cannot be used for salaries, paramedics, etc. And this expenditure will not affect the mill rate. It is critical that the public is made aware of the facts. The future of our downtown depends on it.

ROSEMARY RASCATI, WALLINGFORD

Monday, October 10, 2011

Vinnie Testa for Mayor - Family Pasta Dinner and Campaign Rally


Vinnie Testa for Mayor
Family Pasta Dinner and Campaign Rally


Thursday, October 13, 5:00-9:00


VFW Hall 23 Prince Street


$20 / $30 per couple


**Kids eat free! Bring the whole family. No need to cook. **


Please R.S.V.P. vtesta@comcast.net or 203-675-4079

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

AGENDA WALLINGFORD TOWN COUNCIL

TOWN OF WALLINGFORD, CONNECTICUT

REGULAR TOWN COUNCIL MEETING

Town Council Chambers

TUESDAY

OCTOBER 11, 2011

6:30 P.M

Moment of Silence

1. Pledge of Allegiance and Roll Call

2. Correspondence

3. Consent Agenda

3a. Consider and Approve Tax Refunds (#224 - #262) totaling $6,102.96 Acct. # 001-1000-010-1170 - Tax Collector

3b. Acceptance of Donation and Appropriation in the Amount of $787 Youth & Social Services Special Fund Alzheimer’s Association to Donations Acct #2134002-47010 and to Expenditures Acct # 21340100-58830 – Youth & Social Services

3c. Acceptance of Donation and Appropriation in the Amount of $10 Youth & Social Services Special Fund to Donations Acct #2134002-47010 and to Expenditures Acct # 21340100-58830 – Youth & Social Services

3d. Approve minutes of Regular Town Council Meeting of September 27, 2011

4. Items Removed from the Consent Agenda

5. PUBLIC QUESTION & ANSWER

6. A. Report regarding General Government UPSEC Local #424 Unit #17 management union wage increase impact; and

B. Discussion and Action with regard to transfer of funds from Electric Division and Sewer Division with regard to UPSEC Local #424 Unit # 17 management union wage increase – Mayor

B1. Consider and Approve a Transfer in the amount of $27,160 to various accounts and from various accounts – Electric Division

B2. Consider and Approve a Transfer in the amount of $24,975 FY 2011-2012 to various accounts and from Maintenance Transmission & Collection Lines Acct # 461-00673 – Sewer Division

7. Conduct a Public Hearing at 7:00 P.M. to consider repeal of existing Ordinance and enactment of revised Ordinance regarding Article II, Dog Leashing, Chapter 71, Animals, of the Code of the Town of Wallingford

8. Conduct a Public Hearing at 7:15 P.M. to consider and act on an Ordinance entitled an Health Insurance Benefits Fund Ordinance

9. Discussion and Action regarding the formation of the following commissions or authorities

Building Commission

Wooding Caplan

Insurance Commission

Parking Authority

-Councilor Nick Economopoulos

10. Discussion and Possible Action to end an investigation of Wallingford Housing Authority Commissioner, Thomas Mezzi, by the Wallingford Law Department and the Wallingford Town Council without findings, recommendations or conclusions - Councilor Nick Economopoulos

11. Consider and Approve an Appropriation of Funds an Amount to be determined from General Purpose Contingency Acct # 7060-3190 to Election Expenses Acct # 58705

12. Executive Session pursuant to §1-200 (6)(D) of the Connecticut General Statutes with respect to the purchase, sale and/or leasing of property – Mayor

Monday, October 3, 2011

Wallingford council OKs tax deal for Leigus Road office building

As published in the Record Journal, Wednesday September 28, 2011

By Robert Cyr
Record-Journal staff
rcyr@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224


WALLINGFORD

— Workstage Connecticut LLC, the developer working to complete the building that will be the future headquarters of Anthem Blue Cross, will be exempt from 20 percent of its property taxes for the next seven years after being accepted into a tax abatement program by the Town Council Tuesday night.

Workstage is the seventh-highest taxpayer in town, with property assessed at $20,151,880. The annual break on Workstage’s tax bill will be $55,467.

The company, owned by New York-based Gale International, resumed construction this year at 110 Leigus Road. Anthem was originally slated to move into the space this month but has not done so due to incomplete work, said Donald Roe, town program planner.

The 305,000-square-foot building, which was partly completed in 2007, was originally built for Mortgage Lenders Network USA Inc., but that company went bankrupt shortly after the subprime mortgage industry imploded the same year.

“I think there’s been some slippage in their schedule,” Roe said before Tuesday night’s council meeting. The move-in date is a moving target.”

Gale and Anthem representatives did not return calls Tuesday.
Workstage spent about $20 million on the project and is finishing up construction for Anthem’s move after years of inactivity, scheduled for completion in September 2012. Anthem will occupy 217,764 square feet of the campus.

A certificate of occupancy from the building department will trigger the first year of the program for Workstage, said Town Attorney Janis Small. If Anthem were to leave the location, Workstage would be held to the same standards to stay in the tax program by seeking another tenant.

Councilor Craig Fishbein said Workstage also owns property at 1427 Barnes Road and is negligent on its taxes there, making the company ineligible for the program.

Joan Malloy, a lawyer from local law firm Loughlin Fitzgerald representing Workstage, told the council that the taxes have been paid and appeared negligent due to a clerical error that had been recently corrected.

“Anthem will definitely see the benefit of this incentive program, and it was a significant influence on what got them to come here,” she said.

According to the tax collector’s office, Workstage paid $483,654 in taxes last year and will pay $277,339 in 2011. The property’s assessed value was cut in half during this year’s revaluation, dropping from $20 million to $10 million.

“We are thrilled with this project — it has been a long time in the making,” said Richard Nunn, chairman of the Economic Development Commission.

To be eligible for the program created in 2005, a business must make at least a $12 million investment in its property, and employ a minimum of 1,200 people in a space of no less than 60,000 square feet. The property will be revaluated again in 2016.

As stipulated in the agreement, Workstage must repay its tax abatement savings if there is a reduction in the workforce size that puts it below 1,200 jobs, Roe said.