WALLINGFORD – Parking report for Wallingford Center

At the recent Council meeting I asked if we ever did at needs study specific to the parking lot and the need for public parking in Wallingford Center with specific reference to the private property lot at Simpson Court.

While I could not seem to get a straight answer I already knew of an older report that reviewed parking in Wallingford Center that was done in 2004 (with a few updates as of 2007) done by the Planning and Zoning office and staff titled “Parking in Wallingford’s Central Business District” which I have scanned and posted online.

That document can be found via “main document” page at http://www.zandri.net/PDF/main_document.pdf

I am not going to go into my interpretation of the details of the parking needs assessment, I will do that at the Council Meeting on Tuesday September 25th as I do expect an addendum to discuss this matter again.

I will point to the “PARKING NEEDS” assessment as outlined from pages 3 to 10 as well as the results and further details on pages 11 and 12.

There is additional information within the report (details of the parking space turnover study, etc.).

There are also other items broken out in their own documents such as the Downtown Street Parking at http://www.zandri.net/PDF/Downtown_street_parking.pdf as well as the “Parking space occupancy and major downtown employers” at http://www.zandri.net/PDF/Parking_space_occupancy_and_major_downtown_employers.pdf which shows the Parking Space Occupancy Rate and then finally there is the Parking Space Occupancy Rate update from May of 2007 available via http://www.zandri.net/PDF/Parking_space_occupancy_rate_May_2007.pdf 

I am sure the conversation is going to be plentiful on Tuesday September 25th – be sure to be there or watch it on Government TV Channel 20.

Public Presidential Debate Watch -Wednesday, October 3, 2012 7:00 PM

If you are already planning to watch the presidential debate please consider joining us - one and all - and engage in the discussion and participate.

The event is free - the doors open at 7PM

https://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gsbdg2

Public Presidential Debate Watch
(2012 Debate Watch Party)

#2012debates: The first presidential debate of the 2012 election is Wednesday, October 3rd. The public is invited to gather to this free event to watch the debate together and make plans to get involved for the final month of the election. Join us for what is sure to be a fun evening!

While not actually nonpartisan one and all are invited to watch, discuss and debate.

Time:
Wednesday, October 3, 2012 7:00 PM - 11:00 PM

Host:
Jason Zandri

Location:
Zandri's Stillwood Inn
1074 South Colony RD
Wallingford, CT 06492

WALLINGFORD - Trying to make a name in the 90th House District

As published in the Record Journal, Saturday September 15, 2012

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

Recognition is big problem for Darter in campaign vs. Fritz

WALLINGFORD - Republican Guy Darter has been going door-to-door since June in an effort to convince voters to elect him to the 90th House District and send home 28 year state Rep.Mary Fritz. Darter, a Cheshire businessman making his first run for elected office, won his party’s nomination in May and has been working hard to get his name known. He also met with voters at the recent Cheshire Fall Festival. “I’ve gotten a great response,” he said. “I’ve been talking to them about the issues. I think people are fed up with the state government.”

Fritz, a Wallingford Democrat, was first elected in 1982, lost in 1984 and has won every election since. In addition to sending out mailers to her constituents and going door-to-door, Fritz has been having meet and greets in some of the new neighborhoods her district added in last year’s redistricting.

“In an informal atmosphere like that, people feel comfortable to talk about anything and everything,” she said.

Fritz said she does her best to be available to her constituents and is constantly meeting and talking with constituents at church or in the grocery store. She said she routinely appears at community events, such as the Fall Festival and Wallingford’s recent 9/11 memorial service.

Both Darter and Fritz qualified for public campaign financing. The candidates received $26,850 from the state’s election fund after raising at least $5,000 on their own from at least 150 donors from their district.

Darter said his primary focus if elected will be to reduce the tax burden — particularly on senior citizens, by eliminating state income tax on social security benefits — and make the state more business friendly. He pointed to a recent study by the Institute for Truth in Accounting that ranked Connecticut’s financial state as the worst in the nation.

“Spending is out of control,” Darter said. “Democrats have controlled the General Assembly 28 of the last 30 years. (Fritz) is a Democratic leader. She can’t run from it.”

Fritz considers herself a moderate Democrat and said she has voted against several bills that weren’t in the best interests of her constituents, including Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s most recent budget that raised taxes by $1.8 billion. She noted that the Institute for Truth in Accounting report only details Connecticut’s fiscal status through mid-2010 and she believes things have gotten better since then.

“I think the jobs bill has been helpful,” Fritz said.

Darter is a believer in term limits and a true part-time legislature.

He wants to limit state legislators to five terms.

“A state government should not be run by career politicians,” he said.

Fritz said she works hard on behalf of her constituents and it’s not uncommon for her to meet with one on a Saturday morning to work on a problem. She said some of her recent accomplishments including working to bring EDAC Technologies Corp. to the former Pratt & Whitney plant in Cheshire and fighting the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection over phosphorus regulations that could cost local towns millions.

“I worked for my community on a lot of issues,” she said.

Darter, Fritz and other candidates are expected to appear at the Cheshire-Wallingford League of Women Voters forum on Oct. 11 at Cheshire Town Hall, where they will field questions from the audience. The event is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m.

WALLINGFORD - Meeting to answer trash plant questions

As published in the Record Journal Saturday September 15, 2012

By Laurie Rich Salerno
Record-Journal staff
lsalerno@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2235
Twitter:@LaurieSalernoRJ 

WALLINGFORD – The state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and the owners of the town’s trash-to-energy plant will hold an informational public meeting in October, triggered by a petition from residents with concerns about the plant.

Representatives of Covanta, the New Jersey-based company that runs the Wallingford plant at 530 S. Cherry St., and the DEEP will be at Town Hall on Oct. 4 at 7 p.m. to answer questions about the facility.

Every day, the plant burns 420 tons of trash from Wallingford, Meriden, Cheshire, North Haven and Hamden, according to Covanta. The process produces 11 megawatts of energy daily, which Connecticut Light and Power purchases. Covanta has applied to the department to renew its Solid Waste permit. After an initial and then more in-depth technical review, the DEEP tentatively approved the permit, with a 30-day period for public comment.

Resident Robert Gross, a longtime critic of the plant, submitted a 25-name petition to the DEEP during the period, which forced a hearing. Gross said he and other residents are concerned about the facility’s previous Environmental Protection Agency violations and the odors he says sometimes emanate from the facility.

“You can go down there on a good day and get some real strong whiffs of trash and burning - especially in the summer months when the air is heavier,” Gross said.

After submitting the petition, he and two other residents met with representatives from DEEP and Covanta to discuss some of the issues that led them to object to the permitting. Some issues were resolved, according to Gross and the DEEP, but it was decided to hold a public information session so all residents can ask questions of both the authority and the business.

The information session is preferable to a public hearing, Gross said. In a public hearing, the public merely voices concerns about the direct issues that are logged for the DEEP’s consideration. But in an information session, the company and DEEP can answer questions raised at the meeting, or get back later to inquiring parties. In this format, the public also doesn’t have to stick to questions related solely to solid waste permitting; they can talk about air emissions, which is covered in a separate air quality permit that will come up for renewal next year, according to a DEEP spokesman.

“My hope is that it’s very productive dialogue and that we satisfy the questions and the concerns that the residents have,” said Gabrielle Frigon, permitting supervisor at the DEEP. Frigon has been working with both Gross and Covanta on the process.

Covanta representatives said they, too, were looking forward to the October session.

“We’re always open to letting the public know what we do at the plant and help them understand what we do with the plant,” said James Regan, Covanta’s manager of corporate communications. Regan said the meeting “should provide plenty of information and address concerns if there are concerns.”

Gross said he believes some of the conversation will involve the plant’s previous emissions violations.

The state attorney general’s office sued Covanta in 2010 and won the case after the plant had two emissions violations in two years. The company was forced to pay $400,000, split between the state treasurer and DEEP.

Testing showed that one of the plant’s emissions stacks was letting out more than twice the dioxins than are allowed. The unit was shut down and upgraded to fix the problem, according to Regan, and is now running below the legal limit.

“Tests have come back since we’ve restarted the unit, and it’s been well within compliance,”Regan said. Frigon said the petitioners could still force a public hearing if they are unsatisfied by the outcome of the informational session. “We want to make sure that the public absolutely maintains their right to be heard,” Frigon said.

Wallingford – Editorial Cartoon for Sunday / Editorial - Of lot and wall

Regarding the decaying retaining wall delineating Wallingford’s Simpson Court parking lot from Holy Trinity School playground, a fundamental question emerges: Who built it?

Perhaps, as Jeff Danziger’s editorial cartoon below avers, “We the People built it.”

This much-ballyhooed wall — technically determined to be on school owned property — was built by people who, at the time, took ownership for its raison d’être and subsequent construction. Then, as now, people are responsible for maintaining its structural integrity — defining anew its integral role in assuring safety and stability.

There is much riding on this behemoth of a wall other than sheer mass of density related to that which it retains. Children play here. Simpson Court parking lot’s physical stability is upheld. It’s a location with hybrid purpose — private/ commercial, with added benefit of municipal parking.

It can either become a protracted thorny-thicket topic (depending on one’s political/philosophical stripes) or, as columnist Steven Knight suggests in his “From Wallingford” commentary on this page, a let’s-make-hay-while-the-sun- shines opportunity for resolution.

Wedding a much-needed rehab of the parking lot to its abutting wall described above manifestly makes sense. In our news story of September 13, we noted that Wallingford built this lot and has leased it from businesses for public parking since 1961 for a nominal fee. A plan to upgrade the lot using $500,000 of town money last year was denied implementation by voters in a November referendum. Under the new plan, state funds would cover most costs — Simpson Court commercial property owners would pay $20,000 for the project and be reimbursed half, while Holy Trinity School, which abuts the lot westerly, would pay $10,000, receiving no reimbursement.

Sunlight for municipal hay, in this case, is afforded by what may indeed prove a providential state grant whose purpose and mission dovetail propitiously with town needs. It’s title — Main Street Investment Fund — is quintessentially appropriate for this off-Main project. It’s money intended for projects which improve local commercial centers: stimulating new businesses while keeping centers attractive to shoppers.

By all means, both private and public, keep Simpson Court’s vicinity attractive . . . and safe.

Town Council and civic debate over a multi-pronged proposition involving private, commercial, town and church entities seeking proper conclusion to a mutually- shared problem is, quite naturally, expected. At the end of the day (and before Knight’s cows come home), taking full advantage of a loan with limited shelf life is compelling — especially since safety and security are elements amplifying the percussive tick of Wallingford’s agenda clock.

We urge that reasonable accommodation and prudence guide this project (without rancor) to satisfactory conclusion while that sun shines, but before municipal cows come home.

WALLINGFORD - Wooding-Caplan lot project stalled

Many unhappy paving won’t be finished for Celebrate Wallingford, while others still think parking isn’t needed

As published in the Record Journal Sunday September 16, 2012

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

WALLINGFORD - Work on a temporary municipal parking lot on the town-owned Wooding-Caplan property is stalled, but officials say they are confident, if permits come through, that construction will be completed before winter.

Town Engineer John Thompson said the town is still waiting for permits from the state Department of Transportation to begin work on the Wallace Avenue portion of the project. The town plans to create 100 parking spaces at a cost of about $200,000.

“We’re moving ahead but we’re not moving as fast as I would like,” Thompson said. “We’re pushing for the permits. The state knows it’s important to get this done.”

Thompson said town crews began a paving project on North Plains Industrial Road last Sunday and are storing the millings from that job to use for the temporary parking lot. Once the permits are approved, the work on the parking lot shouldn’t take too long, he said.

There are three aspects to the project: work to improve the parking lot surrounding the police station, which has already begun; the widening of Wallace Avenue into a standard, two-lane town road; and laying down millings to create a temporary lot with an expected lifespan of seven to 10 years.

Officials had hoped to have the lot done in time for Celebrate Wallingford, the two-day festival that will be held uptown this year, but that’s not likely to happen with the event three weeks away.

“Am I disappointed? Yes,” Republican Town Councilor John Le-Tourneau said. “Am I surprised? No. If this was a private entity, it would be done already, but because we’re a municipality we have to jump through so many hoops it’s incredible.”

Republican Town Councilor Craig Fishbein said it would be “a travesty” if the new lot is not done in time for Celebrate Wallingford.

“I think it stinks,” he said. “I brought this issue to the forefront in February with the intent of it being done quickly.”

Elizabeth Landow, the executive director of Wallingford Center Inc., the downtown business advocacy group, said she was told by town staff that the lot should be available during Celebrate Wallingford even if the project isn’t complete, but other arrangements have also been made.

“We hired a trolley and we’ll be using that to bring people from the parking lots at Doolittle Park and behind Brothers Restaurant,” she said. “But we’re keeping our fingers crossed that we can park cars [on Wooding-Caplan].”

LeTourneau and Fishbein believe the temporary lot will get heavy use because they say people are already parking there in its current condition: an unlighted patch of grass.

“Go on a Friday or Saturday night and look at the cars parked back there,” Le-Tourneau said.

In a letter to Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr., Landow said her organization supported the Wooding-Caplan project.

“Downtown revitalization, to which the town has historically committed so many resources, is at an important crossroad,” she wrote. “The proposal to install temporary parking in the Wooding Caplan area is a very positive step in continuing the process. ... Decent parking improves the downtown which is an asset of the entire town.”

Landow proposed additional improvements to the other town-owned lots downtown, including the repair and resurfacing of the pavement,striping, lighting improvements, better signage and landscaping.

But others have raised questions about whether there is a need for more parking. A 2004 study ordered by the Planning and Zoning Commission concluded that there was adequate parking in the downtown area but “customers must be willing to park in rear lots and walk up to a block to their destination.”

Among the recommendations included in the study was better advertising and a marketing plan for the parking that’s currently available.

“Education is also the key to convincing people that parking in a downtown might mean walking as far as a block to reach their destination, but that it is probably less walking than they do each week at the grocery store,” according to the study.

Democratic Town Councilor Jason Zandri agreed.

“I think we need a better outlining of public parking in the downtown,” he said. “There’s plenty of parking behind Town Hall. It’s not that far.”

“For some reason, a couple of blocks seems onerous,” Thompson said, noting that in larger cities such as Hartford or New Haven it’s common to park and walk a block or two.

Democratic Town Councilor Nicholas Economopoulos said he disagreed with the project from the start, believing the town should spend money on improving other downtown lots.

“I can’t see spending money on something temporary,” he said.

Economopoulos said he wasn’t surprised that substantial work on the project hadn’t begun. He noted that last year he had proposed creating a parking commission to develop a plan for downtown parking.

“It’s another example of a lack of planning and a lack of follow-through by our town,” Economopoulos said.

Photos by Christopher Zajac, courtesy of the Record-Journal

Simpson lot owners have ‘skin in the game’

As published in the Record Journal Friday September 14, 2012

By Laurie Rich Salerno
Record-Journal staff
lsalerno@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2235
Twitter:@LaurieSalernoRJ

WALLINGFORD - Some Simpson Court property owners are looking to dispel negative notions about their long-term agreement with the town to provide public parking in their back lots.

This week, some town councilors said the property owners would get a cushy deal if the town pursued a state grant for $500,000 for maintenance and upgrades, including lighting, to the parking lot behind Simpson Court.

In the plan, the owners would also put in $20,000 each for the work and be reimbursed $10,000. The grant allows for this type of public-private partnership. The project would also expand the public parking area from the current 60 or so feet at the back of the lot to encompass more of the until- now privately used part of the lot, and upgrade the whole area. The council is expected to vote Sept. 25 on whether to allow town staff to submit a grant application. “They get their property completely refurbished. Every other business in this town collects their rent, puts some of this aside for maintenance and upkeep — these businesses don’t have to,” Town Councilor Jason Zandri, a Democrat, said at Tuesday night’s council meeting.

But some Simpson Court property owners say the project is a way for the town to make up for the years it has neglected the lot.

“The lot is really too far gone to do regular maintenance,” said Mary Pimentel, part owner of North Main Street Realty, which has owned buildings at 36-40 N. Main St. since 1985.

The town built the parking lot on Simpson Court property in 1961. Since then, it has leased the lot from property owners on a year-to-year basis for $1, and in the agreements has said it would provide maintenance on the lot.

But aside from yearly snowplowing, Pimentel hasn’t seen any repairs done on the lot since she purchased the property, she said.

While several councilors have been talking about making sure owners have “skin in the game” by putting more money into the upgrades, Pimentel said the owners already have made a major investment.

“Our stance is we do have ‘skin in the game;’ our skin is the property,” Pimentel said. “We own that property, we pay taxes on the property, we don’t get any money at all. Their payment is that they will maintain the property.”

The five properties have four owners: North Main Street Realty, F&M Bank Wallingford LLC, Masonic Temple Corp., and Fred Ulbrich Jr.

Ron Hansen, president of Masonic Compass Lodge No. 9, which owns 48 N. Main St., said that if the application for the grant is rejected by the council, he may talk with other property owners about filing a lawsuit. Despite property owners’ paying taxes on the property since 1961, the town hasn’t held up its end of the bargain, he said.

“The town never maintained the property. Now it’s in disrepair all these years later,” Hansen said. He said he and other Masons constantly pick up trash and pluck sumac trees that take root in the lot. But he said that in the past few months, the town’s Public Works Department has come in and filled some holes and made other repairs that stanched the growth. Hansen said that work is the only time he’s seen the town do anything on the parking lot.

The owners of F&M and Ulbrich could not be reached Thursday for comment.

Both Hansen and Pimentel said the town had been talking with property owners about making major repairs and upgrades to the lot since 1999, and plans had been in place a long time, until they were knocked down in a November 2011 referendum that some believe was stoked by partisan politics in an election year.

After the referendum, Jack McGuire, owner of two of the four properties, pulled out of the longstanding lease agreement and made his portion of the lot private.

Dickinson said he hopes the outcome is different this time. “This has been public parking since 1961. To have it not be public parking — I’m concerned that it will have a negative effect,” Dickinson said. “We’re actually losing parking, that is a concern to me.”

He rejects the idea that the town has not maintained the lot, saying that much of the lot that is in poor condition is the private portion.

“Look at all the lumps and bumps: A lot of that isn’t the town’s,” Dickinson said. “It’s another of the complexities of this, with all the variables that can certainly affect a person’s perceptions.”

Councilor Craig Fishbein, a Republican, said Thursday that he would likely be in favor of having the town resurface the lot, but he’s not in favor of the major upgrades such as lighting and the reconstruction of a retaining wall on the lot. For those types of improvements, he said, the town should ask for $50,000 from each property owner and $100,000 from Holy Trinity School for the retaining wall determined to be on the school’s property.

“What I have said from the very beginning of this — their contribution should be the same as the town’s. If they don’t have the money, we put liens on the property that are payable over 30 years,” Fishbein said. He said he could see another referendum vote coming the town’s way if it submits the grant and receives the funding.

WALLINGFORD - Simpson lot plan: ‘Deja vu,’ some say

As published in the Record Journal Wednesday September 12, 2012

By Laurie Rich Salerno
Record-Journal staff
lsalerno@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2235
Twitter:@LaurieSalernoRJ

WALLINGFORD - Town councilors argued with town staff Tuesday night about a proposal to apply for a state grant to repair the Simpson Court parking lot, with councilors calling the conversation “deja vu.”

“It’s actually a slap in the face to our taxpayers, who resoundingly defeated the last plan,” said Councilor Craig Fishbein, a Republican, referring to a previous Simpson Court lot upgrade proposal using solely town funds that was overturned in a referendum last November.

Councilors are expected to vote on whether to apply for the grant at their next meeting, on Sept. 25. There is no assurance that the town, if it applies, will get the grant.

Tuesday night, the mayor and town staff presented two items related to the Simpson Court lot: Corporation Counsel Janis Small’s opinion that the town is not liable for repairing a deteriorating retaining wall for the lot that abuts Holy Trinity School, and a plan to repair the wall and make other improvements to the lot by applying for a $500,000 state grant.

Town Engineer John Thompson and Small explained why they believe the retaining wall was not built by the town. They said that architectural plans for a 1961 Parking Authority project that created the Simpson Court lot — or rather, extended an existing lot — mention an existing concrete retaining wall. Holy Trinity school officials and others had speculated that the town had built the wall during the construction of the lot.

“Based on examination of these documents, it’s very clear to me that the wall existed in 1960-1961,” Thompson said.

After reading the bid documents from the 1961 project provided by the town and a letter from land surveyor Rosalind Page — commissioned by the school to look at the documents — that said the town built the wall, Councilor John LeTourneau, a Republican, disagreed with that conclusion.

“I think there’s a lot of work that still needs to be done to this,” LeTourneau said, explaining that a number of questions still need answers.

The discussion moved on to the repair project.

Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. presented his plan to have town staff apply for a $500,000 grant from the Main Street Investment Fund grant program, through the state Office of Policy and Management. The grant would pay for repairs to the retaining wall and other improvements to the lot, which is owned by abutting business owners but has been leased to the town annually for public parking since the 1960s.

Sept. 28 is the deadline to apply for the grant. Abutting property owners would be expected to pay $20,000 for repairs to the lot and would be reimbursed $10,000 through the grant money. Holy Trinity School would be asked to pay $10,000 and would not be reimbursed.

“It really means an improvement of the area, making it safer, providing lights, amenities, really an extension of the streetscape program on Center and Main Street,” Dickinson said.

Three councilors — Democrats Jason Zandri and Nick Economopoulos and Fishbein — opposed applying for the grant, saying the new plan was a rehash of the town’s proposal of a year ago.

Fishbein asked Dickinson why the town would choose to use the grant funding for just the Simpson Court property and no other lots, mentioning a March letter from Wallingford Center Inc. that said repairing town-owned parking lots is one of the town’s top priorities for downtown businesses.

Dickinson said that surveys and plans for the Simpson lot were already in place, and that the town would not be able to do the same preliminary work in time to meet the deadline on other parking lots.

“We will not qualify for it trying to suddenly do some work on other areas that have not been surveyed,” Dickinson said. “It takes six months or more to put together a project plan.” Dickinson said the town became aware of the grant in August. Zandri said the town should ask for more money from abutting businesses.

“They get their property completely refurbished. Every other business in this town collects their rent, puts some of this aside for maintenance and upkeep — these businesses don’t have to,” Zandri said.

Councilor Tom Laffin said the council should discuss appropriate fees for the business owners, but said he felt it was important for the town to retain and upgrade the lot.

“It needs to be easier to go out — downtown needs to be easier,” Laffin said.

Ron Hansen, president of the local Masonic Temple, which is one of the surrounding property owners, asked the council whether each business’ property used by the town since 1961 was taxed by the town. Dickinson said it was, but that he did not know at what rate.

Then, Hansen said, “Was it really in fact a free lease?” Hanson supported the town’s bid for a grant.

In other business, the council approved the Board of Education’s contract with its school nurses 6-1 with Economopoulos opposed. The contract runs from July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2015, and gives the nurses a 1.5 percent-plus-increment wage increase the first year, and a 1 percent-plus increment increase for each of the second and third years of the contract.

Little time to apply, so councilors suspicious

As published in the Record Journal Thursday September 13, 2012

By Laurie Rich Salerno
Record-Journal staff
lsalerno@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2235
Twitter:@LaurieSalernoRJ

WALLINGFORD - At the center of the Town Council’s current debate on rehabbing the parking lot behind Simpson Court is a state grant — town officials said they acted on it quickly once they learned of its availability, but some councilors believe it could have been looked into earlier.

Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. sent a letter to the Town Council last week asking it to allow the town to apply for a $500,000 state grant to repair and upgrade the privately owned parking lot behind businesses on Simpson Court. The application is due Sept. 28, and councilors are slated to vote on pursuing the grant at their Sept. 25 meeting.

The town built the lot and has leased it from the businesses for public parking since 1961 for a nominal fee. A plan to upgrade the lot using $500,000 of town money last year was shot down by voters in a November referendum. Under the new plan, the state funds would cover most of the cost, and Simpson Court commercial property owners would pay $20,000 for the project and be reimbursed half, while Holy Trinity School, which abuts the lot to the west, would pay $10,000 and receive no reimbursement.

The grant in question is part of a newly established Main Street Investment Fund. The fund was created as part of a state legislative business incentive package called the Act Promoting Economic Growth and Job Creation in the State, and was signed into law in late 2011. The fund is expected to provide $5 million in municipal and private business grants in fiscal year 2012-13 and another $5 million in 2013-14. The top amount a grantee can receive is $500,000.

The money is intended to go toward town projects that help improve local commercial centers to attract new businesses and keep the centers attractive to shoppers. Examples of projects include streetscapes, decorative lighting, landscaping and cosmetic and structural building improvements, according to a fact sheet for the program.

“It’s to promote business in town commercial centers — if there are sidewalks that are falling apart or if you have a green that is unmaintained, that is not attractive for businesses to come in and expand,” said Dimple Desai, community development director for the Office of Policy and Management. Desai administers the fund.

This month is the fund’s first deadline for grant applications, Desai said. She said she did not know how many organizations would apply, or whether there would be more than one opportunity to apply in this fiscal year.

Some Wallingford councilors criticized the mayor Tuesday night for mentioning the grant with less than a month to apply, saying the town was purposely creating an urgent deadline situation to push through a pet project.

When asked Tuesday why they chose Simpson Court, town staff said that having little time to apply meant the town could only seek funds for already well-planned and surveyed downtown projects — Simpson Court, they said, was the only parking lot that had all the preliminary work completed.

Councilor Nick Economopoulos, a Democrat, said Wednesday by phone he felt the mayor neglected other possible projects and purposely shortened the deadline with the mindset of, “How can I do this instead to get what I really want done?” He also said that he was rebuffed when he asked the town for proof of when it received information on the grant.

The town’s program planner, Don Roe, who is in charge of writing and obtaining grants for the town, said the first he’d seen of the grant was a press release that came out in June, but he and other municipal officials got details of the grant in one of five workshops OPM held in late July and early August.

Desai and OPM literature both corroborate the time of the initial press release and the grant workshops.

“We waited for the workshops; there was that recognition this was a new initiative from them, that a lot of questions were getting asked, from staff people in communities near and far,” Roe said. He attended an Aug. 3 workshop, he said, and brought the information back to the town, heartened that the grant addressed partnerships between municipalities and private businesses. “I think there’s a clear recognition that downtowns take a collaborative effort — it’s not something that’s exclusively government, and not something that’s exclusively private,” Roe said. The grant application requires that town government leaders officially approve the project prior to submission. And one portion says it has to have local and regional support.

Economopoulos said the project doesn’t have public support, evidenced by voters quashing the initial project in referendum.

Desai said local and regional support means the town has already allocated funds to the project or other phases of the project, or planning and zoning has approved it.

When asked whether having a contentious project such as Wallingford’s with a previous referendum vote against it would hurt the town’s chances, Desai said she couldn’t comment on specific cases.

“We’ll review everything, make sure that everybody complies with what is required with the statutes,” Desai said.

Either way, Roe said he would mention the referendum in the grant proposal, if town staff end up getting the OK from the council to submit it. “I think the interest has been to put together a proposal that is quantitatively different than the past one, but still looks to address what are critical issues for downtown and downtown’s vitality,” Roe said.

As for the town’s chances to get the grant if they apply? Dickinson said he felt they were good.

“The support for a number of different elements are good, it’s a commercial area, it’s also got a school, I think that makes it a bit interesting,” Dickinson said.

Council weighs in on mayoral debate

As published in the Record Journal, Monday September 10, 2012

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

WALLINGFORD - Even William W. Dickinson Jr.’s most ardent supporters agree that the 29-year mayor can’t serve forever, but whether he’ll be succeeded by another elected mayor or a town manager is a matter of some debate.

Former Town Councilors Michael Brodinsky and Stephen Knight penned columns recently in the Record-Journal for and against, respectively, changing the town’s form of government by introducing a town manager.

“Town managers are specialists,” Brodinsky wrote. “They are all around us. They are doing good jobs. The town manager system is also a proven system of government across the country, too.”

Knight countered Brodinsky’s argument by saying many towns are moving from managers to elected chief executives.

“Rather than dilute authority and diffuse responsibility as does a town manager form of government, many municipalities are investing more of both in a single elected individual so that the government will have a chief executive directly answerable to the electorate,” he wrote. While professional municipal managers are the norm locally — with town managers in Cheshire and Southington and a city manager in Meriden — according to the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, managers oversee just 28 of the state’s 169 towns and cities. A change in Wallingford’s top executive would require a change in charter, a complicated, drawn-out process that was defeated by voters in 2009. “I’m open to exploring a town manager form of government, but it’s easier said than done,” said Democratic Town Councilor John Sullivan.

Sullivan said if Wallingford ever decided to go the town manager route there would be candidates “with a lot of experience in grant writing and managing small and medium municipalities.”

“That person would have some leverage over a local politician who may not be qualified,” he said. “It’s something we should be open to and look at.”

Democratic Councilor Nicholas Economopoulos said he believes a town manager would help town government run more efficiently.

“Anything that lessens the amount of politics involved in running the town I’m for,” he said.

But other officials disagree. Republican Town Councilor John LeTourneau said the strong mayor form of government has worked well since its introduction in the 1960s.

“If it’s not broken, why do we need to fix it?” he said.

Though town managers may have professional training, Le-Tourneau said he believes the skills necessary to govern the town are “more common sense than anything.”

While he supports the current system of government, Le-Tourneau said he’s not opposed to term limits of four years for the mayor and councilors so more time can be spent working for the town rather than campaigning.

Democratic Councilor Jason Zandri said he likes the idea of electing a mayor every two years, but would like to see the salary increased. Dickinson has not received a raise since at least 2002 and earns $73,140. “With what we are paying people, we’re not getting the candidates because the pay isn’t well enough,” Zandri said.

Zandri said, while he disagrees with Dickinson on some issues, a mayoral form of government “gives people more of a say.”

Lot of contention over lot repair plans

Wallingford council likely to discuss new idea tonight

As published in the Record Journal Tuesday September 11, 2012

By Laurie Rich Salerno
Record-Journal staff
lsalerno@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2235
Twitter:@LaurieSalernoRJ

WALLINGFORD - Nearly a year after voters knocked down a plan for the town to repair the parking lot behind Simpson Court, town officials are pitching another idea: using state funding. But some town councilors feel it’s just last year’s plan repackaged.

During tonight’s meeting, the Town Council is expected to discuss Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr.’s proposal to apply for a $500,000 state grant to repair the privately owned but publicly used lot behind the buildings along Simpson Court with access from Center Street.

Voters overwhelmingly rejected a plan last November that would have allowed the town to make $500,000 worth of repairs to the lot, which the town has leased for public parking from surrounding business owners since 1961. The town has hoped to make the investment and maintain the lot in exchange for a 30year lease.

“This has already been brought forward to the residents. The council pushed it through and the residents pushed back. Now all this is doing is coming back. It’s under the guise of a state grant,” said Councilor Jason Zandri, a Democrat, Monday. Zandri has written two columns adamantly opposing public funding for the lot in his blog over the last week.

But Dickinson said the proposal differs from last year’s bid.

“It’s not the same project. It’s financed differently,” Dickinson said. Instead of having all repairs paid by the town, if Wallingford gets the grant, the repairs would be paid for both by the state and by owners of abutting properties. The state money would come through the Main Street Investment Fund grant program, administered by the Office of Policy and Management. The deadline to apply for the grant is Sept. 28.

According to the proposal, property owners would be asked to contribute $20,000 to the project and receive $10,000 in reimbursement from the state funding. Owners include F&M Bank Wallingford LLC, Masonic Temple Corp., Fred Ulbrich Jr., Gail DeBaise, Barbara Farrell, Mary Lee Pimental and North Main Street Realty. Holy Trinity School would be asked to pay just $10,000, and wouldn’t receive any reimbursement.

The money would go to what some say are much needed repairs. This includes fixing a concrete retaining wall on the property of Holy Trinity School, which administrators say is falling apart. The school came to the council on June 26 to ask if they would help fund repairs to the wall since Holy Trinity administrators believe the town built the wall and lot, though no documentation to that effect has been found.

After being assigned by the council in June to look into the issue, Town Attorney Janis Small said in a letter provided to the council last week that the town has no liability for the wall.

Zandri wants to see a case study done on the lot to see how many people actually use it and if they would be just as well served using the free parking at Town Hall, or some of the other sites throughout town. He said he counted more than 600 open spaces in the downtown area over the weekend.

“There are plenty of spaces. There’s demand 12 times a year,” Zandri said, noting town center concerts and other special events. “Any other time, the Town Hall parking lot is wide open.”

Zandri said he’d like to see the money go to the lots the town owns outright.

Town Councilor John Le-Tourneau, a Republican, disagreed, saying that he’d driven downtown one night this weekend and every lot was packed, with cars even parked on the Wooding-Caplan property which has not yet been paved.

Dickinson said he believes keeping the Simpson lot open is vital to downtown.

“Without the public parking, the businesses don’t get clientele and the businesses start closing. It’s not a good situation for the entire community,” Dickinson said.

LeTourneau said he hasn’t made a decision on the proposal, and would wait until the council discusses it tonight.

Vinny Cervoni, a Republican councilor, said he thinks the town’s new plan is good — with business owners putting in for costs this time around. And it’s necessary, he said, since the town’s lease agreements with the businesses to use the lot say the business owners have to maintain it.

“It puts skin in the game for them,” Cervoni said. “I think it’s an attempt to solve the problem and reduce the direct exposure to the town taxpayers.”

Councilor Craig Fishbein, also a Republican, opposes the plan, saying the money is still coming from taxpayers, and that the town should focus its energies on the Wooding-Caplan property, where the town plans to create a 100-space temporary lot this fall.

Cervoni said the state money comes from Wallingford residents, but that he has no jurisdiction over those taxes.

“Sitting on the Town Council, I have no control over state or federal taxation of us. If there is money out there that will provide benefit to the town without directly impacting the taxpayers — I think we have an obligation to look at that money,” he said.

Photo courtesy of Dave Zajac / Record-Journal

Children play near a deteriorating retaining wall in the parking lot at Holy Trinity School Monday. Wallingford’s Town Council is expected to discuss a new proposal for fixing up the lot. Unlike one voters rejected last November, this one calls for the use of state grant money.

AGENDA - Wallingford Town Council Meeting September 11, 2012 6:30PM @ Town Hall

I have the agenda posted for the regular Wallingford Town Council Meeting over on Wallingford Patch.

As you may already be aware, twice a month as a rule there are regular meetings of the Wallingford Town Council. They are held at Town Hall and open to the public.

An agenda is put together about a week prior to the meeting with topics for discussion that night and I have included the next meeting’s below for your review.

From time to time there are last minute changes / additions to the agenda but for the most part it is static once released.

This is the agenda as presented on Wednesday September 5, 2012 for the Tuesday September 11, 2012 regular Town Council Meeting.

And the number of parking spaces in Wallingford Center for PUBLIC parking is…

So before I get to the meat and potatoes of my post I want to remind everyone that I have the agenda posted for the regular Wallingford Town Council Meeting over on Wallingford Patch for Tuesday’s Council meeting on September 11, 2012.

Of special note regarding that I want to make sure to call out the following point; the Simpson Court / Private Downtown Parking Lot issue returns to this upcoming Town Council meeting.

You might not know it from this agenda item but the issue of Wallingford paying for the private parking lot at the rear of the businesses at Simpson Court uptown is going to be discussed.

8. Discussion regarding:

Report from the Town Attorney on the Simpson Parking Lot Wall
Possible options for the Town to pursue

The “Possible options for the Town to pursue” regarding the “Report from the Town Attorney on the Simpson Parking Lot Wall” is to apply for a state grant in the amount of $500,000.00 to “improve the Simpson parking area.”

The above link provides you with some additional details and along with my thoughts on that.

With the recap done – on to this post

I decided to talk a walk Sunday morning with my oldest son and count all the public parking spaces available in Wallingford Center.

By definition, a public parking space is one that is made available for the general public to park their car at will (within the limits posted by any signage) on a first come, first served basis.

I will outline what I counted and where as well as what I left out that I could have otherwise justifiably counted as part of the parking scheme for Wallingford Center.

So first – what did I leave out? 

I left out the entire Wooding-Caplan site; even though we are presently rebuilding the area and may be using it for the next five to ten years, there has been no effort to fully commit the area permanently for parking. So due to that I skipped all the planned spaces there – all 100 spaces

I also left out the first block of every street off of Center between Route 5 and Main. It would be very easy to justify that area of parking as being available (as it is) but for the sake of discussion I left those spaces out too. I also left out any available spaces on Prince Street and Church Street.

I also did not count the BUSINESS spaces at the rear of Archie Moore’s because if there is any public parking back I didn’t see the signage so I erred on the side of caution and left it out.

The highlighted map below details the specific areas that I left out of my count.

All those yellow highlighted areas I left it out of the count – approximately 200 additional spaces for a total of 300 when combined with what I did not count at Wooding-Caplan (that area is shown below).

Also, beyond the 300 mentioned above I did not count the spaces we currently have use of by way of the year to year agreement on the private property behind the business at Simpson Court (as shown below)

What I did count

The 43 spaces at the Credit Union on South Main (shown below).

The 173 spaces at Town Hall and along South Main

The 69 spaces in Simpson Court and along North Main to Church Street

The north side of the lot, which has public parking space designation, between North Whittlesey and North Orchard which totaled 30 spaces.

The small lot behind that, across the street from the synagogue, which has 15 spaces.

The north sides of the Back of America lot and the lot across Meadow Street (only the areas designated as Public Parking by signage) – total spaces 83.

I also counted all the spaces available on Hall Avenue down to North Cherry and all the spaces at the rear of the Train Station that are available to the public as Public Parking – 108 in all.

The last major area of mention is Center Street itself from Route 5 North to Fair Street which encompasses 107 spaces. 

So what’s the bottom line?

When you add all of these areas of available parking together you have a grand total of 628 spaces for the public to park their cars.

And there is even more space if you include the omitted first block areas of the side streets directly off of Center Street.

In the 27 years of driving my car into Wallingford Center for any reason whatsoever on any random day I have never had to walk more than one block to get to the destination of my choosing and that is because there is plenty of parking if you know where to look and are willing to walk about a block’s distance when necessary.

Letter to the Editor of the Record Journal regarding “Woodgate”

As published in the Record Journal Sunday September 2, 2012

Editor: Woodgate investigations over. Conclusion: honest mistake. What a waste of time.

Right? Not so fast. Mr. Mangino, a public employee, had a contract with the town to haul debris, not including wood, to his private dump site. The contract required a permitted site, a million dollar insurance policy and for him to use his own employees and equipment. Consider these investigative findings:

1) Mangino stated in his bid application and his first interview with investigator Terry Sullivan that the address of his site (proven not to be a permitted one) was 1171 S. Broad St. He later stated the address to be 1173, his uncle’s address. The Public Works director who hired Mangino has stated that he himself had driven to the site where the wood was delivered and that address was 1179 S. Broad St. (Question - Who’s on first?),

2) the million dollar policy was never posted

3) town employees, on town time, loaded wood into town vehicles and delivered it to Mangino’s site

4) no proof that all wood delivered was returned to the town

5) Mangino burned wood to heat his garage at 1173 (there’s circumstantial evidence that he burned town wood because he received no financial consideration from the town for picking it up)

6) town employees definitely violated the town code of ethics.
After instructing Terry Sullivan to conduct an investigation and prepare a report a report the council found to be less than thorough - the mayor was presented with the finding he wanted – an honest mistake.

However, that same investigation revealed problems much more troubling than the taking of wood. It’s obvious that contractual requirements are meaningless and no one is held accountable when breaches are discovered. The laissez faire attitude of this administration assures us that these problems will continue.

VINCENT A. AVALLONE, WALLINGFORD

Parker-N. Cherry OK’d for train station

As published in the Record Journal Thursday August 23, 2012

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

WALLINGFORD - The state Department of Transportation has received federal approval to move forward with designing and planning a new train station near the intersection of Parker and North Cherry streets, part of a $647 million project to revamp rail lines from New Haven to Springfield, Mass.

John Bernick, project manager, said the Federal Railroad Administration recently approved the site. The Town Council backed the location in June, 5-2, over Ward Street near Judd Square.

To build the new station, the state will need to acquire land from Cerrito’s Auto Sales, at 180 N. Colony St. Bernick said the state was already in discussions with the property owner. “It’s a lengthy process, so we’re starting it now,” he said. “We have to purchase the property and the business owner has to look at relocation options.”

Final designs are expected to be completed in August 2013, with construction beginning as soon as October. Bernick said the DOT would be back before the public in Wallingford once design plans were near completion to seek input.

But some in town still have concerns, including Republican Town Councilor John Le-Tourneau, who cast one of the two votes against the site.

“It’s not going to work,” Le-Tourneau said. “I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think so.”

LeTourneau said he’s concerned about handicapped access to the site, as well as that there’s no room for expansion. “I think there was some long-term planning that wasn’t done,” he said.

The Parker Street station would be a split site with two parking lots, one on each side of the tracks, totaling 210 spaces. One of the lots would be at the intersection of Parker and North Cherry Streets on the south side of Parker and the west side of the tracks, with entrances on North Cherry. The second lot would be placed on North Colony Street, on the site of Cerrito’s used car lot.

Town Engineer John Thompson said the Ward Street site posed public safety risks because trains stopping there would tie up Ward Street, a main east-west artery through town, preventing emergency vehicles from getting to their destination.

“The Parker site afforded us a greater degree of assurance that the fire trucks would have the opportunity to get across the tracks,” Thompson said. “That was the compelling factor.”

A parking garage had also been proposed for the Ward Street location, a plan that town staff and some councilors opposed.

With all the parking on one side of the tracks at the Ward Street site, congestion would have been worse, Thompson said.

Republican Town Councilor Craig Fishbein, who supported the Parker site, said it “seemed to make a lot more sense.”

“I preferred the surface parking to the parking garage,” he said. “And I had concerns about the roadway in the area.”

LeTourneau said he is worried about buses having difficulty exiting on Route 5 from the Parker Street site and that he wishes councilors had been included in discussions between Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr., Police Chief Douglas Dortenzio, Fire Chief Peter Struble and Thompson that preceded the council vote.

“The process we went through, in my opinion, was a terrible process,” he said. “I think some councilors were not informed.”

The Federal Railroad Administration approval of the Wallingford site was part of a larger “Finding of No Significant Impact” report, which freed $121 million in federal funds for the New Haven-to-Springfield rail project.

“That was a big step,” Bernick said. “We hope to have that grant obligated shortly and gain access to the money.” Construction of the entire rail project, which also includes a new station in Meriden, is targeted for completion in 2016.

Parking lot work ready to start at Wooding-Caplan

As published in the Record Journal Thursday August 23, 2012

By Laurie Rich Salerno
Record-Journal staff
lsalerno@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2235
Twitter:@LaurieSalernoRJ

WALLINGFORD - The town is about to begin construction on a temporary parking lot at the Wooding-Caplan property and related improvements to the area, town officials said Wednesday.

Town Engineer John Thompson said work will begin in a few weeks on the first stage of the three-part project, which will eventually result in a 100-space parking lot on the town-owned Wooding-Caplan property. Officials would like to have the project done by the time Celebrate Wallingford takes place, on Oct. 6 and 7, but that depends on how construction proceeds, Thompson said.

The lot will provide what some say is much-needed parking.

“I’m very happy,” said Town Councilor John Sullivan, a Democrat. “Uptown needs more parking. Hopefully this will fit that need. As long as we can direct people to that lot, it is going to be a key to the success there.”

The land is near the center of town, behind buildings on North Main, Center, Academy, and North Elm streets. The project is expected to cost $200,000.

The Town Council approved the plans last spring after asking town staff to report on the feasibility of putting temporary parking on the Wooding-Caplan site. The request came after voters rejected a plan in November 2011 for the town to repair a privately owned lot behind Simpson Court.

The first stage will involve milling and resurfacing the parking lot behind the police station, which will be next to the new lot. The work will fix potholes and other breaks in the pavement, restripe the lot, and install new drainage, Thompson said.

The town selected R.P. Dalton Asphalt Paving, of Waterbury, to do the work on police lot, and Thompson said he expects work to begin in the next few weeks.

The rest of the work will be done by the town Public Works Department.

The second phase is widening and paving of Wallace Avenue, an alley that will serve as the access road to the new lot. Department of Transportation permits will likely be obtained in the next two weeks for the project, Thompson said.

The street is now about 12 feet wide, within a 50-foot public right of way. The final road will have two 13-foot lanes, one headed in and one out, with an added 8-foot parallel parking lane on the east side of the street.

“We’re constructing this Wallace Avenue Connection as though it’s going to be a town street,” Thompson said. That means digging up the road and moving some of the utilities — including water and sewer pipes under the street, which Thompson said may slow construction.

“Once you start digging, you never know what you’re going to encounter,” Thompson said.

The final road will have lighting and curbs. It is being constructed not only for the parking lot, but for any structures that may come after the parking lot.

The final stage will be creating the temporary parking lot itself. The Public Works Department will take millings gathered from a resurfacing project on North Plains Industrial Road and roll them out to create the lot surface. The lot is expected to last seven to 10 years. Construction on North Plains Industrial Road is set to begin in the next two weeks, Thompson said.

The surface will be more stable than gravel, but won’t be as permanent as pavement, said Public Works Director Henry McCully.

“It binds very solidly together,” McCully said.

The final lot will have lights and a sidewalk connecting it to Center Street. Initially there will be no time limit on parking there, Thompson said,but if cars are parked there for days, or other issues arise, the town may consider putting some regulations on the spaces.

Thompson said some residents of North Elm Street have raised concerns about flooding from the work. He said that after meeting with residents and investigating the property, it was discovered that there are drainage issues on the Wooding-Caplan site. The town will put in a drainage system that will collect groundwater and route it to Center Street so it doesn’t affect North Elm Street residents.

“We heard the comments from the residents — it was legitimate — and we’re using conventional engineering strategies to try and solve it,” Thompson said.

The Wooding-Caplan property was bought by the town in 1991 for $1.5 million. There have been many plans for the site, including a 2006 sale to a developer for condominium and commercial space that was rejected in a referendum, and as the location of a new $20 million police station that was explored in 2008 but not pursued.

As for the current plans, “the pieces are falling into place,” Thompson said.

Wallingford council looks at new rules for outdoor dining

As published in the Record Journal Wednesday August 22, 2012

By Laurie Rich Salerno
Record-Journal staff
lsalerno@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2235
Twitter:@LaurieSalernoRJ

WALLINGFORD — Town councilors will consider changes to an outdoor dining ordinance that could give them the power to approve or deny sidewalk seating for certain businesses.

Only restaurants interested in serving alcohol in an outdoor sidewalk dining space need to apply to the Town Council for permission, according to an ordinance passed in 2004. If the restaurant wants the outdoor dining space that takes up part of a public sidewalk but won’t serve alcohol, it doesn’t need to go before the council.

But a resident’s concern has caused the council to re-examine the ordinance, which it will do at a special Ordinance Committee meeting Thursday night.

According to Town Councilor Craig Fishbein, who co-chairs the Ordinance Committee with fellow Republican Vincent Cervoni, someone told him that an establishment was not complying with the regulations set out in the ordinance for its sidewalk patio. A closer look at the ordinance, Fishbein said, led him to see that it only covered restaurants serving alcohol, and the business in question was not. Neither councilor would reveal the name of the business that had been the source of complaint. “The way the ordinance is drafted, it can be construed to only apply to those establishments that sell alcohol — which is an issue,” Fishbein said. “I think the intent to a certain extent is public safety.” Fishbein said having outdoor spaces that don’t follow town guidelines for size can be a hazard for pedestrians.

“I’m not looking to restrain trade, but there’s ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements for sidewalks,” Fishbein said.

Several businesses downtown have outdoor seating, including Gaetano’s Tavern on Main, Archie Moore’s, Half Moon Coffee and Grill Cafe and Mr. D’s cafe and bakery, all on North Main Street.

Neither Half Moon nor Mr. D’s serves alcohol, though Half Moon does allow guests to bring their own alcohol. Both could be affected by an ordinance change that regulates outdoor seating for all businesses. Owners of those establishments could be reached by phone Tuesday.

Gaetano’s co-owner Debbie Pacileo said her business brought the issue up to the council years ago, when the restaurant wanted to serve alcohol in its sidewalk space. The request was approved. Today, she said, most summer nights the patio is completely booked.

“People love it; it’s so nice for the town, too,” Pacieleo said. “Uptown has really blossomed since this came into effect.”

Among several requirements, the ordinance says that the sidewalk spaces must have a sturdy rail or other divider separating the section from the rest of the sidewalk, and that the space be accessible only through the restaurant and not from the outside.

The applicant also has to submit a drawing of the space, including tables and chairs and how they are arranged, as well as a certificate of insurance that includes the town as an “additional insured party.” It requires the certificate to be a minimum of $2 million for damage or injury related to the business use of the sidewalk. It also has to leave enough space to allow wheelchairs and other supportive devices for those in need, in line with ADA standards.

Cervoni said he was not convinced that the ordinance needs to be changed.

“I thought it was interesting that they chose to regulate outdoor dining based on whether or not they were serving alcohol,” Cervoni said of reading the document. “While I find that interesting, I get the point. While I want to hear what the complainant has to say, I don’t see the need to further regulate, necessarily.”

He said he thought issues with particular businesses could be addressed directly with a small business owner.

Fishbein said he’d like to discuss other changes to the ordinance, saying he’d like to make it a provision that businesses reapply each year for approval, while now there’s no expiration date on approvals. He said that since insurance has to be renewed annually, this would allow businesses to submit new insurance certificates each year.

In another issue, the committee will discuss revisions to its open burn rules Thursday. Last year, it approved an ordinance that made burning in fire pits and commercial outdoor chimineas legal, with certain restrictions. This year, the Fire Department is asking to revise those rules to add that open burning must stop from midnight to 6 a.m., residents have to have the means to extinguish the fire available at the site, and that it has to be attended at all times.

Fire Marshal Carmen Rao said the recommendations were made to the department by residents. One was tired of their neighbors leaving their fire smoking the next day.

“It’s to help people to be a little bit safer, give them some guidance,” Rao said.

 

Photo by Dave Zajac / Courtesy of the Record-Journal

Above: Patrons of Archie Moore’s bar and restaurant relax across North Main Street.

Photo by Dave Zajac / Courtesy of the Record-Journal

Above: Bartender Tarry Radnoczi talks with customer Debbie Gravell, right, who opted for outdoor dining to celebrate her 59th birthday with her husband, Thirl, on Tuesday at Gaetano’s Tavern on Main in Wallingford.

No more wood probes, Legion building may be rented

As published in the Record Journal Wednesday August 15, 2012

By Laurie Rich Salerno
Record-Journal staff
lsalerno@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2235
Twitter:@LaurieSalernoRJ

WALLINGFORD — At its meeting Tuesday night the Town Council voted against further investigation into the alleged mishandling of town wood, and also decided to put the American Legion building out to bid for purchase or lease, this time requiring a 10 percent payment up front.

In an 8-1 vote, the council chose not to pursue an independent investigation into allegations that Public Works employees were selling woodcut from town parks. Only Democrat Nicholas Economopoulos voted to continue the investigation.

“This has been a root canal for me the last 6 to 7 months,” Councilor John Sullivan, a Democrat, said of the wood investigation.

The vote followed the first formal discussion by the council of a second investigative report prepared by Personnel Director Terence Sullivan at the council’s behest and released in late July. The 35-page report concluded that there was not enough evidence to prove that town employees were selling town wood. Terence Sullivan and Public Works Director Henry McCully fielded additional questions from the councilors during the meeting.

The initial investigation stemmed from an incident last January in which wood reportedly cut from damaged town trees following the October nor’easter was taken to the private lot of Public Works employee Randy Mangino. Acting on a tip that town trucks were taking loads to a private lot, Economopoulos asked the town to investigate the matter. In an initial report, the personnel director said the wood ended up on Mangino’s lot because McCully allowed him take it under a private contract Mangino held with the Water Department to haul clean fill and debris. McCully said he had misread Mangino’s contract, allowing him to take a town truck and haul logs, and the incident was called “an honest mistake.” But the council asked the personnel director in June to return to the matter with a second, more in depth investigation.

Most of the Republican councilors thought Sullivan’s second report was sufficient, and that the investigation could be closed.

“I felt that the report was consistent. Twenty-six people were interviewed, of the 26, 25 stories completely jibed. Unless those 25 gathered in some secret conspiracy meeting, I don’t see how those stories could come together,” said Councilor Thomas Laffin, a Republican.

They also felt the issue had been sufficiently dealt with earlier in the year when the council voted to restrict town employees from bidding on outside contracts with the town that were similar to their job descriptions or in their departments.

Councilors Craig Fishbein, a Republican, and Democrats Jason Zandri and John Sullivan said they felt the second report was flawed and they still had questions about the incident — but they thought that the town’s investigation needed to end.

John Sullivan voted against continuing the investigation, saying that he did not feel the wood was stolen, but that there were holes in the report and disappointing operational lapses in how Public Works handled the situation.

He said he was still disturbed by the fact that a Public Works employee used a town truck, likely on town time, to move wood from the town to his private lot, and did not suffer any sanctions for doing so. He also took issue with the statements that McCully and Mangino could consider logs “debris.”

“I think there’s a big difference between debris and logs,” John Sullivan said. “I define debris as dirt and twigs ...”

McCully said that the definition of debris was loose and, as an example, told councilors that a FEMA worker who came to assist the town following the October storm and measured piles of brush for the town was called a “Debris Specialist.”

Economopoulos took issue with the three different addresses that have been mentioned for Mangino’s dump site throughout the investigation. The first address was listed as 1171 S. Broad St. on his contract; in a January letter from McCully, the Public Works director said he went out to 1179 S. Broad St. with Mangino to look at the wood brought there; and then, in June, Mangino said the actual address was 1173 S. Broad St., that he’d made a mistake on the contract.

“I recognize the different addresses — but there’s no proof, there’s no evidence, and that’s what we need here,” Terence Sullivan said.

McCully said his error was due to the fact that many properties were accessed by one driveway.

Economopoulos took issue with what he felt were shifting stories.

“Everything I said to you has never wavered — and I don’t intend to waver — I know what happened and I believe what happened to this day,” Economopoulos said.

As for the American legion building, the vote to issue another request for proposal for the purchase or lease of the building also came on an 8-1 vote, with John Sullivan as the only “no” vote. He supported selling the building, but rejected the addition by Fishbein of an option to allow bidders to lease the structure.

Councilors supported Fishbein’s other recommendation, as well, which was to make bidders pay 10 percent of the purchase price up front, upon acceptance.

“I think when somebody’s got a little skin in the game, I think things will change,” Fishbein said.

Two bidders who had been approved to purchase the property dropped out in the last year, one just in July.