Wallingford: Drop-box decision – Editorial in the Record Journal Sunday March 17, 2013

As published in the Record Journal on Sunday March 17, 2013

Wallingford Police Chief Douglas Dortenzio should reconsider a recent decision to deny installation of a medication drop box in his department’s station.

Abuse of prescription pills is a harmful problem in communities of all types. Ingesting analgesic opioids like Oxycontin and Percocets causes euphoric feelings analogous to taking heroin, a similarly constructed compound. And like heroin, these powerful pain-killing medications, when used recreationally and frequently, lead to addiction, increased tolerance, greater doses required to achieve highs, escalating health problems and, in some cases, overdose and death. Doctors prescribe these potent drugs for individuals in extreme pain. After removing their molars, dental surgeons may send people home with a few Percocets. It’s not uncommon for discharged patients to take analgesics appropriately until physical anguish subsides, but then leave half-filled medicine bottles in household cabinets. Friends and relatives can then steal unguarded, unused opioids for personal abuse or to sell. Addicts sometimes break into residences in search of these narcotics.

Many citizens may not realize the danger of old pills stored in closets and bathrooms. Thus, one would think Wallingford law-enforcement representatives would support local systems for collection and destruction of unwanted prescriptions. Instead, Dortenzio dismissed reasonable requests from the Coalition for a Better Wallingford to establish a public drop box in police headquarters.

The chief’s arguments are illogical. The “most common method” for prescription disposal, he curiously proffered, is for residents to throw away unwanted pills (R-J, 3-14). Surely, Dortenzio in his long career must understand that mono-focused addicts, without second thought, could rip through someone’s trash should they think Oxycontins buried within. And his suggestion that drop-box installation would cause foot traffic issues in police headquarters and parking problems outside is an overestimation of logistics.

“I can’t be a substitute for responsible citizens,” Dortenzio stated in our news story. But wouldn’t responsible action for residents be bringing drugs to police for proper, documented, supervised destruction? The chief also believed maintaining a drop box would require from his department too extensive commitment of man-hours and paperwork. However, 27 state towns already provide comparable disposal services, including Cheshire and Southington. It’s worth the extra effort to save local lives and boost community safety.

Members of the Coalition for a Better Wallingford have secured state grants and local-business support so that drop box purchase and drug destruction would cost taxpayers nothing. Brought before Town Council, the concept received mostly warm reception. Legal approval, however, may remain under the authority of Dortenzio.

He should end his resistance. At the very least, this would be symbolic of town police supporting thorough means of limiting local drug abuse. But a public drop box could also accomplish much more — it would offer residents a safer option for ridding homes of unused prescriptions while also serving as a proactive step toward deterring crime and addiction.

A town-wide health issue – an editorial by Eric Cotton of the Record Journal

As published in the Record Journal on Sunday March 17, 2013

Reach Eric Cotton at ecotton@record-journal.com or (203) 317-2344. Follow him on Twitter @ecotton3

Wallingford Police Chief Douglas Dortenzio last week recommended that people dispose of unwanted medication by simply throwing the drugs in the trash as opposed to the town creating a secure drop-off box in the police department lobby — even though similar drop-off boxes have been successful and uncontroversial in other communities.

While the town runs two drug take-back events per year, it’s just a bad idea for residents to leave items like powerful narcotic painkillers around the house until then — and it can be just as dangerous to throw them in the trash.

In fact, the Food and Drug Administration recommends AGAINST throwing many narcotic painkillers in the trash under ANY circumstances, even though the state Department of Consumer Protection website says it’s OK with proper precautions.

The FDA provides a list of painkillers that it says should never be disposed of in the trash, including Oxycontin, Oxycodone, Demerol, Percocet and morphine — the kind of opiate painkillers responsible for many overdose deaths.

In the absence of a community drug take-back option, FDA officials agree with the state DCP that other unwanted drugs may be thrown in the trash, as long as they’re mixed with undesirable substances like kitty litter or coffee grounds and placed in a sealed bag.

But “drugs such as powerful narcotic pain relievers and other controlled substances carry instructions for flushing to reduce the danger of unintentional use or overdose and illegal abuse,” according to the FDA website, which explains that the risk of accidental exposure or abuse outweighs environmental concerns if there’s no take-back option available. “For example, the fentanyl patch, an adhesive patch that delivers a potent pain medicine through the skin, comes with instructions to flush used or leftover patches. Too much fentanyl can cause severe breathing problems and lead to death in babies, children, pets, and even adults, especially those who have not been prescribed the drug.”

The FDA website quotes Capt. Jim Hunter, senior program manager on the administration’s Controlled Substance Staff: “Even after a patch is used, a lot of the drug remains in the patch so you wouldn’t want to throw something in the trash that contains a powerful and potentially dangerous narcotic that could harm others.“ Flushing isn’t a great alternative from an environmental standpoint, so why not create a secure drop box? Dortenzio says it would be too onerous for his staff, but Southington police say it only takes about 15 minutes a week to clean out the box they installed in December. That includes weighing the medication and filling out a brief form.

Dortenzio also claims that safely disposing of medication is a matter of personal responsibility and not the town’s concern, which is frankly insulting. If the state and federal governments can’t agree on a proper procedure, what’s the average resident supposed to do?

Federal rules say that, if a city or town opts to have a drop box, it has to be in the police department. But it’s not enough for Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. to simply defer to his police chief as if this were a minor matter of department administration. It’s really a town-wide public health issue and thus it’s appropriate for the mayor to overrule the chief.

Will the drop box solve the problem of local drug abuse? Of course not, but it’s a step in the right direction and an important resource for residents.

Rascati will not run again

As published in the Record Journal on Friday March 15, 2013

By Andrew Ragali
Record-Journal staff
aragali@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224
Twitter:@AndyRagz

WALLINGFORD – Veteran Town Councilor Rosemary Rascati will not seek reelection this fall. The announcement came during Wednesday night’s Republican Town Committee meeting. Rascati has served four consecutive terms on the Town Council, beginning in 2006, and has been a member of the town committee for 54 years.

Rascati said Thursday that she would serve out her term, which runs through the end of the year, but would not seek reelection in November because “a couple of my children have illnesses” and she wants to spend more time concentrating on her family.

“I’m just afraid that I have a little much on my plate that I have not been able to give all the attention that’s needed,” Rascati said. “I take my council duties very seriously. I just feel that I won’t be able to give the time that I have in the past.”

Rascati, 86, has lived in town for 56 years, and has always been heavily involved in civic activities.

“And I want it to stay that way,” she said.

She said she is also in the process of selling her home and purchasing a new one in town.

Rascati said she’s “going to miss the campaigning,” but plans to stay involved because she doesn’t want to feel like she’s “short-changing citizens” who have voted for her and the Republican Party, which she said has supported her for decades.

Rascati served as Town Clerk on two separate occasions for a total of 12 years, and served on the Planning and Zoning Commission. She is on the boards of directors of both Wallingford Center Inc. and the Wallingford Community Theatre.

“She’s been a great addition,” Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. said on Thursday. “She will be missed. Rosemary has been a wonderful person and a person with experience on the council. She has an understanding of the aspects of doing business.”

Town Council Chairman Bob Parisi has sat next to Rascati for all of her time on the Town Council. He called her “a good lady, good woman, and a dear friend.”

“She’ll be missed, certainly,” Parisi said. “You can always count on her to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s.”

Town Councilor John Le-Tourneau said the presence of someone who has “been here for so long” will be missed.

Republican Town Chairman Bob Prentice said that after Rascati made the announcement Wednesday night, the estimated 50 people in attendance gave her a standing ovation for about three minutes.

“I couldn’t help but cry a little,” Rascati said. “I noticed a lot of my friends shedding a tear, and it made me feel bad that I’m doing this.”

Prentice called Rascati a “real asset to the town of Wallingford.”

During Rascati’s address at the meeting Wednesday night, Prentice said, she thanked everyone and said she’s “not going away” and “still wants to help out the town.”

Democratic Town Councilor Jason Zandri, who has served alongside Rascati since 2012, said he was sad to hear that she’s leaving the council. He said he understood that it’s difficult to do your job when family issues arise.

“It’s always a delicate balance of having enough free time to do a job that you need a lot of time to do,” he said. “It’s unfortunate. She really enjoys doing the work.”

The process of finding a replacement for Rascati on the council is already under way, Prentice said. He’ll be sending out an email to all members of the Republican Party in Wallingford to gauge interest in the position.

“We’re just getting the process moving,” he said, adding that he likes to be prepared, especially since the caucus in July isn’t that far off.

“It’s not something you want to go about overnight,” he said.

Prentice said it will be hard to replace Rascati. “She’s so fair and so honest and hardworking,” he said.

Rascati said members of the Republican Town Committee are “like a second family.”

Wallingford Police Chief: No need for drug drop-off

As published in the Record Journal on Thursday March 14, 2013

By Andrew Ragali
Record-Journal staff
aragali@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224
Twitter:@AndyRagz

WALLINGFORD – Residents should take personal responsibility and dispose of unwanted medication on their own, said Police Chief Douglas Dortenzio, who opposes a medication drop box at the police station.

While Dortenzio said he is “not opposed to the concept of disposing of drugs” for safety reasons, he said “the general public has been disposing of personal medications for decades without the assistance of law enforcement.”

The safest way to dispose of medication is to put it out with the trash, he said. “I can’t be a substitute for responsible citizens.”

Dortenzio was responding to a request from the Coalition for a Better Wallingford, which continues to push for a medication drop box at police headquarters.

A founding member of the group, Ken Welch, presented his case for the medication drop box before the Town Council on Tuesday night. Following Welch’s presentation, Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. said he would defer to Dortenzio on the question of installing and operating a drop box at the police station.

“The most common method that’s available to everyone is to dispose them in the garbage,” Dickinson said.

Welch said “there’s no good reason” to oppose a medication drop box at the department. He said the push for a drop box was part of the coalition’s work to stem the tide of drug use and overdose deaths in Wallingford. Welch said the Police Department considered a medication drop box months ago, but he “was told it was undoable” because of stringent requirements by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, which oversees all medication drop box programs in the nation. At the time, Welch said the DEA required every pill in a drop box to be inventoried, which he agreed would be a tedious and wasteful task. Those requirements have been lifted, Welch said, and now the Police Department must only report the total pounds collected annually.

But Dortenzio said Wednesday that current requirements are impractical.

“The conditions of doing these drug boxes are more cumbersome than what we do on a daily basis,” Dortenzio said, explaining that when drugs are seized by law enforcement, they are easier to process.

To legally have a medication drop box, Dortenzio said, two officers must have independent keys to open the box. Every time the box is opened, he said, medication must be logged and weighed, and a case report must be filed. That doesn’t happen with other drug seizures, Dortenzio said.

Dortenzio also argued that the Police Department lobby is not suitable for a medication drop box because of its small size. Placing the box in the lobby would create handicapped- accessibility issues, he said. Dortenzio said parking is limited as well, which would make it difficult for people to stop by and drop off medication. Dortenzio said the medication drop box can’t go anywhere besides the lobby because at least one police officer must be able to see the box throughout the day.

“It’s got to be an efficient and effective means,” Dortenzio said, adding that the debate alone had been helpful in spreading the word to rid households of unnecessary medication.

Welch said the coalition can have the box paid for through a grant, and Covanta Energy has agreed to burn the medication free of charge. He said that labor expenses are the only issue the Police Department would have to deal with,and those expenses are “worth it.”

He said 27 towns in the state have already adopted medication drop boxes, including Cheshire and Southington.

Major pharmacies in town, such as Stop & Shop, Rite Aid and CVS on North Colony Road, and Walgreens on South Colony Road, do not have any drug take-back programs.

Since December, Welch said, the Southington Police Department has collected 400 pounds of unwanted medication. Southington Police Sgt. Mike Baribault said that department’s drop box is emptied monthly. Every time it’s emptied, he said, a police report is filed and the medication is stored in the evidence room until it is destroyed.

Dortenzio said that, whether medication is discarded in residential trash or in a drop box, it’s all burned at the same location, so there’s no point in a medication drop box.

Town councilors were more receptive to the idea, however. On Wednesday, Town Councilor Tom Laffin said that discarding medication in the trash isn’t the answer because people desperate to abuse medications can easily rummage through the trash and salvage what was thrown out. But Dortenzio said that “if a parent has a suspicion that their children do that, it’s incumbent on the parents to dispose of the medication when their children aren’t watching.” Laffin, along with a majority of the Town Council, showed support for the drop box on Tuesday night. The subject was tabled so that the council could obtain more information on the process.

“I think it’s a good idea,” Laffin said Wednesday. “I know there’s some work to do and logistics to go over.”

Town Councilor Rosemary Rascati said Wednesday that she also supports the plan, but wants more information because “I don’t know exactly what it entails.”

“My initial reaction is that it’s a great idea,” she said.

While Town Councilor Vincent Cervoni said Wednesday that he is “generally supportive” of the drop box, “I just have to figure out how to make it happen.”

“I don’t know that I’m sold (on) the idea totally at this point,” said Town Councilor Craig Fishbein, who cited accessibility issues and DEA requirements as potential roadblocks.

Town Attorney Gerald Farrell Sr. said the council doesn’t have the authority to get the drop box installed. He said he couldn’t comment on whether the mayor could instruct the police chief to install the box because it is a hypothetical question. Dickinson said that theoretically he is the public safety director for the town and could direct the Police Department, but a medication drop box is “not the prime mission of the department.”

Dortenzio “is the person who knows best what needs to be done on a daily basis in order to accomplish any given task,” Dickinson said, adding that he understands the chief’s concerns.

While Dortenzio is against a medication drop box at the Police Department, he said the department takes part in a drug take-back program administered by the DEA twice a year. The next event is April 27, when he said a circular path is created at the driveway of the police station so residents can drive through and conveniently “just hand it off.”

Welch said he would continue to fight for the drop box. “We’ve dealt with each of the chief’s objections,” he said. “I would like to believe they’re putting a healthy effort into putting in a drug box ... It’s painful that you have to waste time on these arguments.”

Invite - Informational Forum on State Budget

Senate Minority Leader John McKinney

Senate Minority Leader Pro Tempore Len Fasano

State Representatives Al Adinolfi and Vin Candelora

Host an Informational Forum on the Connecticut State Budget

Monday, March 18th 7PM – 8:30PM

Wallingford Public Library

Community Room

200 North Main Street • Wallingford

Event is open to the public

For more information, contact: Peggy Deschenes at Peggy.Deschenes@cga.ct.gov or 1-800-842-1421

Christopher F. Diorio
Senate Republican Office
Public Affairs
Legislative Office Building, Suite 3400
Hartford, CT 06106
Direct- (860) 240-8801
Fax- (860) 240-8306
chris.diorio@cga.ct.gov

OPM advice sought on questions about incentive zone

As published in the Record Journal on Wednesday March 13, 2013

By Eric Heredia

Record-Journal staff
eheredia@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2243
Twitter:@EHerediaRJ


WALLINGFORD - Corporation Counsel Janis Small will work with the state Office of Policy and Management’s legal department to address concerns raised by the Planning and Zoning Commission about the proposed Incentive Housing Zone regulations.

The zone would create special zoning regulations for developments on Hall Avenue and Quinnipiac, North Cherry, Meadow, Center and North Colony streets. The regulations allow the town to receive state funding while controlling the design of new developments. By adopting the zone, municipalities can receive up to $20,000 for pre-development studies and up to another $50,000 if at least 250 housing units are built in the zone.

The Incentive Housing Zone falls under an Office of Policy and Management program called Home Connecticut. The program, approved in 2007 bythe state legislature, would require 20 percent affordable housing. Its goal is to provide affordable housing for residents who otherwise wouldn’t be able to stay in Wallingford.

PZC Chairman Jim Seichter asked Small on Monday what would happen if Wallingford were to approve the zone, the state were to accept the application, but the town were to subsequently eliminate the zone. Small said the statute isn’t clear on the consequences, but they would most likely be financial.

“You would think in practical terms that other than ... looking for money back, they might not have an interest, but you can’t say that for sure,” she said, adding that a court order to keep the regulations in place is within the realm of possibility.

Small was asked about the potential of having the zone’s design and parking regulations approved by the PZC, and then having landowners apply for variances through the Zoning Board of Appeals.

“The concern is we’ve spent the time, we’ve crafted regulations, and then if it’s approved and someone comes in and looks for a variance,” Seichter said.

Small said that, in general, state law doesn’t prohibit people from getting variances from the regulations, but they cannot get a variance from a statutory requirement, such as minimum density.

“In talking to OPM about it, you know, raises an interesting point,” she said, recalling an idea raised by an OPM official. “If your regulations for the incentive zone is such that it’s not possible for somebody to actually use it, then why wouldn’t the variance be proper?”

She said the design standards in the drafts are traditionally open for variance applications. She said she assumed that the commission was making requirements that can be can be complied with.

“If you have that level ofcomfort, that’s a good starting point,” Small said.

PZC member James Fitzsimmons, who said he is concerned mostly with parking variances, asked about parcels that have already been granted a variance. Town Planner Kacie Costello asked if variances would carry over if parcels are combined into larger parcels, as happens when buildings are torn down.

Small said she would have to know what the variances are and decide on a case-by-case basis.

Costello asked Small if the commission could add language limiting the types of variances that could be approved. Small said the only thing zoning boards can prohibit are land uses not permitted in the zone.

Dimple Desai, community development director at OPM, said the legal department is looking into the interpretation of the state law and would work with Small to answer the PZC’s questions.

“She’s going to do her own research and come back with her own questions,” Desai said.

For the Incentive Housing Zone to move forward in Wallingford, the Planning and Zoning Commission must establish regulations. Then the Town Council must endorse them because the program involves accepting state funds. After that the amended regulations are sent to OPM, if OPM agrees with the regulations, the agency would give the town preliminary approval.

Then the regulations would be sent back to the PZC, which must hold a public hearing. Then the commission must approve the regulations one last time before sending a final draft back to OPM, at which point “they provide us with final approval,” Costello said.

Old Saybrook has already built 16 housing units through the program and Sharon is going through the permitting process for 12 units. Desai said that OPM has given final approval to five towns: Old Saybrook, East Lyme, Torrington, Sharon and New London. Westbrook and Watertown have gotten preliminary approval.

In other business Monday,the PZC:

-- approved a special permit for retail and restaurant at 1086 N. Colony Road.

-- approved a zoning text amendment allowing for 45foot-high signs on buildings in the IX and IV zones.

-- approved a special permit for M&W Repair to operate an auto repair shop at 71 S. Turnpike Road.

-- approved a special permit for Farms Country Club to build a deck to serve as an extension to its dining area at 180 Cheshire Road.

-- continued its public hearing on J&D Auto Body’s application for a special permit to extend its indoor storage and office space at 1224 Old Colony Road.

Committee mulls alcohol and outdoor dining changes

As published in the Record Journal on Thursday March 7, 2013

By Eric Heredia
Record-Journal staff
eheredia@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2243
Twitter:@EHerediaRJ

WALLINGFORD — During a special meeting at Town Hall Wednesday, the Town Council’s Ordinance Committee discussed changing the local ordinance pertaining to restaurants’ outdoor dining areas where alcohol is served.

Committee members have come to a consensus that the following language will be removed from ordinance No. 6211: The service of alcoholic liquor in such outdoor sidewalk dining areas must be accompanied by a food purchase and must be accompanied by a food purchase and must be performed by wait staff only.

_ All alcoholic liquor must be placed or situated on the dining table and must be in plain glasses, plain cups or other plain containers.

_ No alcoholic liquor advertising may be displayed in the outdoor sidewalk dining area, and no umbrellas or awnings containing such advertising may be situated over the tables or chairs in said area.

The committee did not take any action, but rather gave Corporation Counsel Janis Small some direction on what they would like to see in a proposed change to the language.

Right now, the ordinance says the outdoor dining area cannot be occupied beyond 11 p.m. Cheryl Milot, owner of Gaetano’s Tavern on Main requested that be pushed back to midnight.

“There are times that we have to tell people ... you’ve got to come in now,” said Milot. “We do have people who come, have dinner and linger and have a couple of more cocktails.” Milot said she’d prefer to reserve outside tables for people who want to eat because the restaurant can make more money that way, but sometimes when “happy hour” starts, customers want to sit on the patio and have drinks but not order food.

“That’s against the ordinance,” she said.

Councilor John LeTourneau said he’s been to restaurants outside of Connecticut where you can walk into the outdoor dining area, sit down, order a drink and have a cigar without having to buy food.

“It works and it can work here,” he said.

Councilor Craig Fishbein was concerned that the ordinance does not call for annual renewal of a permit for dining areas on public sidewalks. Small said applications to occupy a public sidewalk go to the Town Council.

Ordinance Committee members wanted to give that responsibility to another town department, which would also be in charge of enforcing the ordinance.

Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. said it would most likely be the Building Department because it also measures the sidewalk to make sure there’s enough space to comply with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act

Some answers, but not enough - Incentive Housing Zone questions remain after visit of OPM official

As published in the Record Journal on Wednesday March 6, 2013

By Andrew Ragali
Record-Journal staff
aragali@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224
Twitter:@AndyRagz

WALLINGFORD – The Planning and Zoning Commission, having received answers to some of its questions, will continue working toward the possible creation of an Incentive Housing Zone, Town Planner Kacie Costello said Tuesday.

An Incentive Housing Zone would create specialized zoning regulations for developments on Hall Avenue and Quinnipiac, North Cherry, Meadow, Center and North Colony streets. The town would keep control of the design of the developments, but at least 20 percent of the housing units built must be affordable housing and fall under regulations set by the legislature to qualify for state money.

The goal of the workshop, held Monday night, was to gather as much information as possible about the zone, which would fall under an Office of Policy and Management program called Home Connecticut. The program was approved by the state in 2007. Dimple Desai, community development director for OPM, attended the meeting and answered questions from the commission and members of the public.

“I think that it was very helpful having someone from OPM there,” Costello said.

Many of the questions asked during the meeting were procedural, Costello said, because “we as a community are looking for as many concrete answers as we can in terms of what the interactions with OPM will entail.”

One of the issues brought up during the meeting was how the Incentive Housing Zone designation could be repealed, if the town should choose to do so.

“You have to get OPM’s approval to get it off the books,” Desai said, adding that he would have to consult legal counsel for a more specific answer.

PZC Chairman James Seichter asked Desai to get back to the town because “it’s been brought up in our prior workshop and it is a potential issue.”

Seichter asked if there would be any repercussions to repealing the zone, such as returning money given to the town as part of the incentive portion of the program.

Under statute, Desai said OPM “may require” the town to repay the state. “Again, it doesn’t say ‘shall,’ ” he said, adding that “OPM and the state work with municipalities” if they revoke the zone.

If the zone is approved, an overlay zone would be imposed, forcing developers to abide by requirements laid out in town regulations.

Desai said the overlay zone is a benefit to developers because of the affordable housing capability, and a benefit to the town because it will have control over the look of the new developments. Costello said control over design standards was the biggest issue for Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. at a January workshop. Dickinson did not attend Monday’s meeting.

Proposals for an Incentive Housing Zone have been around since early 2008, when then-Town Planner Linda Bush presented the idea of creating an overlay zone for a 23.3-acre swath of downtown Wallingford that would allow for mixed-use commercial and high-density residential properties.

During the workshop Monday night, Desai laid out the financial incentives of the program. He said that if at least 250 housing units are created, the town would receive $50,000 to use at its own discretion.

Commission member James Fitzsimmons asked Desai if the zoning district is “subject to variance,” a topic that Seichter called “an important issue and an important question.”

Costello said, typically, a variance can be obtained through the Zoning Board of Appeals when a commercial or residential developer requests a change in zoning regulations. She said a hardship must be proven to obtain a variance. An example would be if zoning regulations required windows on the first floor of a building to be larger than windows on the second floor. If a developer wants larger windows on the second floor, it must prove a hardship to the board. If a hardship is proven, zoning regulations can be changed.

“What the concern is, there could be the potential of a developer trying to bypass regulations via the variance process,” Costello said.

Town Councilor Craig Fishbein, who attended the workshop, said Tuesday that if the appeals board can consider variances, it “throws the Incentive Housing Zone out.”

“The issue of a variance is a major concern,” Fishbein said.

Costello said Tuesday that she will be consulting with the town’s Law Department to clarify if variances are allowed if developers opt into the overlay zone. Desai said OPM has not run into the issue yet because the program is so new. He said it’s really up to the municipality.

The impetus for the Incentive Housing Zone program, Desai said, is to provide more options for young college students or older couples who “cannot afford to live in a town they’ve lived in their whole life.”

Workshops will continue, Seichter said at the end of Monday’s meeting. The commission must look at other issues, such as parking, traffic, and design standards such as maximum building height, Costello said.

“From my perspective, I think it’s beneficial to continue to have discussions on this,” Seichter said.

Housing zone still moving — slowly

As published in the Record Journal on Wednesday March 6, 2013

By Andrew Ragali
Record-Journal staff
aragali@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224
Twitter:@AndyRagz

WALLINGFORD – A decision will be made on the proposed downtown Incentive Housing Zone within the next two to three months, according to Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman James Seichter.

During a workshop held by the commission Monday night, Town Councilor John Le-Tourneau asked Seichter when a decision would be made, adding, “I’d love to see this in my lifetime.”

“I appreciate your frustration on this,” said Seichter, who made it clear to Le-Tourneau that he’d rather not set a timetable. “Clearly we need to reach a decision on this issue in a relatively short period of time.”

An Incentive Housing Zone in Wallingford would create specialized zoning regulations for developments on Hall Avenue and Quinnipiac, North Cherry, Meadow, Center and North Colony streets. The regulations allow the town to receive state funding while controlling the design of new developments. By adopting the zone, municipalities can receive up to $20,000 for pre-development studies and up to another $50,000 if at least 250 housing units are built in the zone.

The Incentive Housing Zone falls under an Office of Policy and Management program called Home Connecticut. The program was approved in 2007 by the state legislature and would require 20 percent affordable housing. The goal of the program is to provide affordable housing for residents who otherwise wouldn’t be able to remain in Wallingford.

Town Planner Kacie Costello said that for the Incentive Housing Zone to move forward in Wallingford, the Planning and Zoning Commission must establish regulations for the zone. The commission will hold workshops to “get proposed regulations to the point they want them to be.”

If regulations are approved by the commission, the Town Council must then endorse them, Costello said. Normally, the council would not be involved with zoning regulations, but since the program entails acceptance of money from the state, she said, the council must take action.

After receiving approval from the Town Council, the amended regulations are sent to OPM, Costello said. If OPM agrees with the regulations, the agency would give the town “preliminary approval.”

Regulations are then sent back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Costello said a public hearing must be held by the commission. Then the commission must approve the regulations one last time before sending a final draft back to OPM, at which point “they provide us with final approval,” Costello said.

“The problem is, there seems to be no urgency on the part of the Planning and Zoning Commission,” said Le-Tourneau, who accused the commission of “dragging their feet” and slowing down the process.

“We’re trying to cure problems that don’t exist,” he said, adding that recent workshops about the Incentive Housing Zone have rehashed issues that had already been settled.

Costello said turnover on the Town Council and Planning and Zoning Commission since 2010 has resulted in some delay during meetings, as new people become acquainted with the situation. The Incentive Housing Zone was first proposed in 2008. On the state side, Costello said, a lack of funding caused delays.

“I don’t think they’re dragging their feet at all,” Town Councilor Craig Fishbein said of the Planning and Zoning Commission. “The towns that rush into things haphazardly get into trouble.”

Fishbein is comfortable with the progress so far because “we want to do it right the first time,” he said. Town Council Chairman Robert Parisi agreed.

“I don’t have a problem with his (Seichter’s) timeline,” Parisi said, “as long as there is free and open discussion.”

Parisi said that, with age, he has learned to become more patient. He believes the Incentive Housing Zone will eventually become a reality, it’s just that in Wallingford, things “are always a little on the slow side,” he said. “I’m not in a rush.”

Instead of two to three months, Town Councilor John Sullivan would like to see a decision made within 30 days.

“Let’s get moving here,” he said.

Sullivan complimented the Planning and Zoning Commission for their “tremendous” work so far, but he sided with LeTourneau in that “we are beating this thing to death.”

Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. pointed out that two to three months isn’t really that long.

“You’re not going to see too many meetings in that amount of time,” he said. “I think everyone needs the time to deal with this in a responsible way.”

Dickinson is supportive of the Incentive Housing Zone, which he hopes will make downtown a “friendlier, more comfortable streetscape kind of scene.”

School systems moving steadily toward BYOD policy

As published in the Record Journal on Sunday February 24, 2013

By Jesse Buchanan
Record-Journal staff
jbuchanan@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2230
Twitter:@JBuchananRJ

Area school districts are on the verge of allowing students to bring and use electronic devices such as smart phones, tablets and laptops in the classroom — and one district is already there.

“Bring your own devices,” as the effort is called by educators, hasn’t yet been implemented in Meriden, Wallingford or Southington, but Cheshire recently made the change in its middle and high schools. And all four school systems say there’s value in allowing students to bring familiar devices for research or note-taking.

The Meriden Board of Education expects to have a policy on student devices up for a vote by late winter, according to Assistant School Superintendent Michael Grove.

“Schools are reviewing the policy and making some changes,” he said.

Students could be bringing their electronics into the classroom by as early as spring. The high and middle schools have fairly reliable wireless Internet access, Grove said, as do some of the elementary schools.

Though details of the policy are still being formulated, Grove said teachers will have control over when and how devices are used in the classroom.

A pilot program in some Platt High School classrooms that allowed students to bring devices went well, according to Grove, and encouraged the board to consider a district wide policy.

After “very successful” pilot programs, Cheshire schools allowed middle and high school students to bring their own devices last month, said Assistant Superintendent Scott Detrick.

Wireless Internet was installed at both schools, allowing students with smart phones and tablets to do Web research. Installing wireless at the elementary schools is the next step to allow pupils in the lower grades to bring their own devices.

Students can also borrow Internet- connected devices from the schools’ libraries.

“If a particular lesson demands the use of a device, then they have access to that,” Detrick said.

The Cheshire Board of Education created policies for “bring your own devices” two years ago.

In December, the Wallingford Board of Education approved $284,000 to upgrade wireless Internet access at the town’s high and middle schools. The upgrades are needed to implement a BYOD program there, said School Superintendent Salvatore Menzo.

The district has policies in place but has put the effort on hold. Menzo said companies approached the district about devices in the classroom but wouldn’t say what the proposals were or which companies offered them.

A BYOD policy needs to improve education, Menzo said, and not just allow students to check their email in the halls.

“We want to make sure we take purposeful next steps,” he said.

Wallingford schools conducted a survey last year of parents and teachers on electronics in the classroom. Of 770 parents surveyed, 53 percent supported the idea of letting children bring electronic devices to school, while 32 percent said they wanted more information.

The survey covered 2,300 students, and almost 90 percent said they owned a device that can browse the Internet. Eighty-eight percent of students in middle or high school said they had a cell phone, with 58 percent of those students owning a smart phone. In the sixth grade, 61 percent of students had a smart phone, compared with 40 percent in 11th grade.

Using a variety of student owned electronic devices, Southington schools conducted a pilot program last year at the high, middle and elementary school levels. Technology Director Karen Veilleux said the pilot was successful at all levels and a report will be sent to the Board of Education next month.

Veilleux expects the board to pass policies on allowing devices district wide, although there are challenges, such as wireless Internet availability and teaching students with devices ranging from eight-year old laptops to the latest iPad.

Ruling on snow day irks workers - Wallingford town staff had to take vacation day

As published in the Record Journal on Sunday February 24, 2013

By Andrew Ragali
Record-Journal staff
aragali@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224
Twitter:@AndyRagz

WALLINGFORD - Town employees told to take vacation time for the day Town Hall was closed during the blizzard are wondering why school system employees weren’t treated the same.

Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. issued a memo Feb. 14 telling employees that if they did not go to work on Feb. 11, when Town Hall was shut because of the storm, they must take a vacation day to get paid. Interviews with several town employees showed that while they’re upset with the mayor and his decision, they’re also angry that employees of the school system will get paid for the three days they were told not to show up to work.

The issue is “something that came up in conversations,” said Chuck Ballard, president of Local 1183 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the union representing public works, clerical and sewer workers. “If the mayor is going to come up with a memo, it should be issued across the board.”

School Superintendent Sal Menzo acknowledged earlier this week that the discrepancies between town and school district employees are “difficult for people to understand.”

“We work under separate labor contracts,” Menzo said.

Much of Menzo’s decision making in regard to school cancellation and employee compensation are based on past practice, which “often times dictates how myself and the administration are required to handle a circumstance,” he said. Dickinson said state law gives control to the Board of Education.

“We do not have any authority over the Board of Education,” Dickinson said.

Last week, Dickinson said, “I have a hard time feeling the town should be paying people when they didn’t work.”

Had Town Hall been open on Feb. 11, employees still would not have been able to work, because the parking lot and roads still hadn’t been plowed completely.

“I don’t want to feel like we are giving money away when it isn’t warranted,” he said.

Dickinson said the school district often closes several times a year because of inclement weather, so Menzo already has a procedure in place. Usually, Town Hall does not close, Dickinson said, so there isn’t any regular procedure.

Dickinson said he does understand why town employees are upset that school employees aren’t being treated the same. The money that funds the general government and the school district come from the same local taxes, creating a situation in which there are two separate entities being held accountable for taxpayers’ money.

“It creates jealousies,” Dickinson said. “There would have to be a change in state law to put everyone on the same footing.”

Personnel Director Terence Sullivan said “it would be nice to follow all the same rules” in order to avoid jealousies between town and school employees.

The solution, said Dickinson, would be to make school districts responsible for raising their own money through taxes. In the past, local legislators have proposed creating a separate Board of Education tax in the state, Dickinson said. He said the practice is employed successfully in Pennsylvania and New York.

With two taxes, “if you’re not satisfied with something on either side, you know who to call,” Dickinson said.

While Dickinson believes creating a separate Board of Education tax would relieve what he calls an “awkward” situation, he does not see a change of state policy on the horizon.

Wallingford - Unions protest vacation-day edict

As published in the Record Journal on Saturday February 23, 2013

By Andrew Ragali
Record-Journal staff
aragali@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224
Twitter:@AndyRagz

WALLINGFORD – Two unions have filed grievances protesting the mayor’s decision requiring town employees to use a vacation day to cover time not worked when Town Hall was closed earlier this month due to the blizzard.

Personnel Director Terence Sullivan said Friday that United Public Service Employees Union Local 424-14, representing municipal managers, and United Public Service Employees Union Local 424-16, representing the Water Department employees, had filed a grievance protesting Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr.’s Feb. 14 memo.

Sullivan also said he expects Local 1183 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the union representing public works, clerical and sewer workers, to file a grievance soon. Earlier this week, the union’s president, Chuck Ballard, said one would be filed by week’s end.

“I’m hopeful we find some resolution,” Sullivan said.

Because multiple unions are filing grievances, Sullivan said the first two steps of the resolution process will be skipped. Normally, an aggrieved employee first brings his or her complaint to a direct supervisor. If the supervisor cannot resolve the issue, it’s brought to the department head. If the complaint is still unresolved, Sullivan holds an informal hearing.

In this case, though, the process will skip directly to the informal hearing with Sullivan because it’s not a single employee bringing forward a complaint.

Separate hearings will be held within “the next two weeks,” Sullivan said, calling the meetings “a fair process.”

Sullivan said that Dickinson is unlikely to be involved in the hearings. Also, no matter what the decision, no disciplinary action will be taken.

“This is just an administrative matter,” Sullivan said.

If the issue can’t be resolved through Sullivan, there is the possibility it will go to arbitration through either the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration or the American Arbitration Association. That is a last resort, though.

“Very few grievances actually go all the way,” Sullivan said.

Shelby Jackson, president of the managers union, was out of the office and unavailable for comment on Friday. Joseph Mrozowski, president of the water workers union, referred comment to Wayne Gilbert, regional director of the United Public Service Employees Union, but Gilbert was out of his office on Friday.

Ballard was also unavailable for comment, but made his position clear in a letter to the editor published in the Record-Journal Friday.

After referring to Dickinson’s memo, Ballard wrote: “However, the binding agreement states that the town is not allowed to close town government offices and demand vacation time to be used. Furthermore, town government offices have been closed in the past and have fulfilled their obligation to pay employees— so why is this situation any different?”

Ballard goes on to say that, with multiple grievances filed,work hours will be wasted and the expense to the town will grow.

“The end result is a huge bill for taxpayers,” he said.

Town Councilor Craig Fishbein, a Republican, agreed with Dickinson’s stance, stating, “I don’t think it’s appropriate to pay people arbitrarily.”

While the cost of arbitration and time put into finding a resolution are “always a concern,” Fishbein said, he thinks it’s inappropriate for the unions to use them as leverage. He called the blizzard “a once-in-a lifetime storm,” and doesn’t think this issue will come up again anytime soon.

Town Councilor John Letourneau, a Republican, said he disagreed with Dickinson, and that the issue could “cost the town thousands in litigation.”

“Is it worth it at the end of the day for a philosophical stance?” LeTourneau said. “That’s where I differ from the mayor.”

Editor Letter from the Record Journal - Miscalculated memo

As published in the Record Journal on Friday February 22, 2013

Wallingford municipal employees who could not attend a day of work because of Blizzard Nemo should not be forced into counting it as a vacation day.

Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. has requested this use of time-off from workers who stayed home when town hall was closed Feb. 11 due to snowfall. Fiscal conservatism of Dickinson has long helped Wallingford remain in solid financial shape, even during stormy economic times. Thus, in asking that staff count a day lost to Nemo as vacation, he’s at least acting with the best monetary interests of taxpayers in mind. “I have a hard time feeling the town should be paying people when they didn’t work,” Dickinson logically argued in a Feb. 14 memo (R-J, 2-16).

Problem is that this comes after the fact. Certain civic employees were told to attend work on Feb. 11 for assistance with cleanup efforts. Maybe additional individuals would have come in had they known beforehand that the alternative was a lost vacation day.

Employees in private sectors, or even other municipalities, justifiably might be unhappy if their boss requested similar sacrifice days after the storm. It’s therefore reasonable, as outlined by Local 1183 President Chuck Ballard (see his letter below), that at least one union representing Wallingford workers expects to file a grievance. “Town government offices have been closed in the past and have fulfilled their obligation to pay employees — so why is this situation any different?” Ballard persuasively writes. Especially since Dickinson’s decision is opposite some public policy in Connecticut.

In Meriden, Southington and Cheshire, municipal employees are not required to use vacation hours in order to receive wages for days when work is canceled. State staff also gets paid even if officials close Connecticut offices in extreme situations like Nemo, as was the case on Feb. 11. Comparatively, Dickinson’s request is unorthodox.

But more importantly, it seems retroactive, and based on unclear legal language. In his memo about the matter, Dickinson stated that he did “believe” that collective bargaining contracts do not require payment of wages unless an employee reports for work. Wallingford unions probably would have responded differently to this if a definite answer existed — and was widely known before Nemo — about whether it’s contractually permissible or not.

Some readers understandably may agree here with the mayor, who has made another tough decision in his decades-long tradition of holding the line on expenses. Wallingford retains sound monetary status partly because of Dickinson’s willingness to govern conservatively and, at times, unconventionally. But taking away vacation without employees knowing prior that those hours were at risk is unjust.

If Dickinson plans to continue requiring vacation time for workdays canceled amidst severe weather conditions, he must negotiate such language unambiguously into future union contracts — ensuring fair, even-handed treatment for both employees and community.

Letter to the Editor of the Record Journal - Mayor and memo

As published in the Record Journal on Friday February 22, 2013

Editor: What good is an agreement if it’s violated? More importantly, what is the ramification if either party does not adhere to the agreement issued by the State Labor Board? It all comes down to this: taxpayer dollars! The fact is that Wallingford Mayor Bill Dickinson closed town government offices on Monday, February 11, 2013. Mayor Dickinson then issued a memo declaring that all employees must use vacation time or lose pay for that Monday.

However, the binding agreement states that the town is not allowed to close town government offices and demand vacation time to be used. Furthermore, town government offices have been closed in the past and have fulfilled their obligation to pay employees — so why is this situation any different?

There will certainly be grievances filed by affected unions, which will result in a multitude of work hours being spent on the case. In addition, add the expense of the town’s labor attorney, which can be even more costly. The end result is a huge bill for taxpayers.

According to a Record-Journal news story (Saturday, February 16), the mayor stated: “I don’t want to feel like we are giving money away when it isn’t warranted.” In this instance, he is doing just that. He is wasting time and taxpayer dollars on a poor labor decision (which is not his first).

Perhaps the residents of Wallingford need to realize it’s time for a change and bring this town into the twenty first century by not wasting taxpayer dollars!

(The writer is President, Local 1183.) CHUCK BALLARD, CARMEL, NEW YORK

Economopoulos opposes quick vote on consent calendar

As published in the Record Journal on Friday February 22, 2013

By Andrew Ragali
Record-Journal staff
aragali@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224
Twitter:@AndyRagz

WALLINGFORD – Town Councilor Nick Economopoulos is unhappy with how the consent agenda is used during Town Council meetings.

During the council’s last meeting, on Feb. 13, Economopoulos questioned an item on the consent agenda, which is technically against procedure.

“There is no discussion or debate either by members of the council or by the general public on consent items,” according to Town Council procedures, which were last amended in 2010.

Thirteen items were on the consent agenda last week, one of which was an appropriation of $500,000 to the Wallingford Housing Authority to cover building repairs. Economopoulos questioned Town Council Chairman Robert Parisi about the item and asked why the council was voting on a costly appropriation he knew nothing about.

“I don’t like voting yes for something when I don’t know what it is,” Economopoulos said on Thursday.

Parisi then explained that the item was brought up in past discussion, and Economopoulos reluctantly accepted the agenda along with his fellow councilors.

The consent agenda was established for council meetings between 10 and 15 years ago, Parisi said. Town Council procedures state that “the consent agenda is a separate listing from the regular agenda of a variety of items to be approved by one vote of the Town Council, rather than by specific votes on each item.”

It’s used to speed up meetings by accepting items that don’t require discussion in bulk.

“You put the ho-hum items on it, the ones that aren’t normally going to involve a lot of discussion,” Parisi said.

During last week’s meeting, Economopoulos suggested placing a monetary limit on items that can be placed on the consent agenda. On Thursday, he said “I’m against the consent agenda as it is,” explaining that cost doesn’t matter. The item could be a $6,000 tax credit, he said. If he doesn’t know what it’s about, he doesn’t like approving it.

Parisi said councilors have a chance to take items off the consent calendar, but there is a deadline. That’s why he said it is important for councilors to check the agenda immediately when they receive it on the Wednesday before the meeting.

“Some councilors haven’t made themselves aware of what the rules are,” Parisi said.

Procedures direct councilors to bring any questions on the consent agenda “up with the department head submitting the request, or the Mayor, if a satisfactory answer is not obtained.”

If more information is needed, councilors must notify the secretary of the Town Council, or the Town Clerk, by 4:30 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting.

“I have other things I have to do that are much more important” than calling town department heads to have consent items explained, Economopoulos said. Town employees have other business to take care of as well, he said, adding that if he called about all the items he isn’t sure about on the consent agenda he would be accused of micromanaging.

“A department head doesn’t want to take our calls,” he said.

Town Councilor John Le-Tourneau disagreed, and said town employees are usually very helpful.

“You really don’t get people stonewalling you,” Le-Tourneau said, adding that he has no issue with the consent agenda. “A councilor must read their backup material and understand what’s happening during the meeting.”

Economopoulos said there are too many items on a consent agenda to understand them all in detail.

“Be an adult,” Parisi said of Economopoulos. “Don’t play games with the agenda.”

Parisi said that the consent agenda’s purpose is to expedite business, not slow it down.

“These are items we should all agree on,” he said.

But Economopoulos said he often does not, and believes the consent calendar implies items are clear cut when they may not be.

“I’m against the consent calendar,” Economopoulos repeated. “There’s nobody watching out for the taxpayer.”

REMINDER - BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS: FILING DEADLINE FEBRUARY 20, 2013

The American Legion building in Wallingford: A timeline

As published in the Record Journal on Monday February 18, 2013

1890s: House at 41 S. Main St. is built, owned by Roger Austin, Wallingford’s tax collector.

1920: American Legion takes over building.

1988: Town begins talks with American Legion Post 73 to buy building. Post eventually rejects offer.

December 1994: Dime Savings Bank forecloses on building’s mortgage. Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. makes the winning bid on the property at $190,000, outbidding five others.

June 1995: Town Council turns down offer from New Haven firm Paul Pizzo Architects to lease the building.

May 2002: Town Council votes to raze the building.

August 2002: Then-Attorney General Richard Blumenthal files injunction on behalf of Connecticut Historical Commission to stop the town from demolishing the structure.

2008: Town Council rejects bids by Wallingford Public Access Association to buy the building for $10,000 and Gouveia Vineyards owner Joseph Gouveia, who offered $65,000 to turn it to office and residential use.

April 2010: Testimony begins in trial over whether town can raze the building.

February 2011: A New Haven Superior Court judge rules the town cannot demolish the building.

March 2011: Town Council votes to sell the building.

June 2011: Joseph Gouveia rescinds two bids on the property, one for $100,000 to turn the house into a wine and coffee lounge, and one for $45,000 to build offices and apartments.

July 2011: Town Council votes to sell American Legion Building to Rick Termini for $125,000.

October 2011: Termini rescinds his bid.

November 2011: Council accepts Jeanine Connelly’s bid for $125,000 to turn the building into a bed and breakfast called The Hitching Post Inn.

July 2012: Connelly tells Council she won’t go forward with arrangement due to loss of a backer and anticipated employee.

November 2012: Council awards Joe Gouveia bid for $75,000 to turn building into first floor office with second- and third-floor apartments.

February 2013: Gouveia rescinds bid because an issue with the building’s sewer hookup could not be resolved.

State to seek more federal storm money

By Susan Haigh

Associated Press

HARTFORD — Connecticut officials plan to seek additional federal reimbursement for storm-related expenses incurred by the state and municipalities during the recent blizzard, saying their request is justified given the enormity of the storm.

Starting next week, the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection and the Federal Emergency Management Agency will begin the process of collecting information from cities and towns about their costs, DESPP spokesman Scott DeVico said. That data will be included in an application by the state for a major disaster declaration by the federal government, a designation that could lead to more federal funds.

Connecticut received an emergency declaration by President Barack Obama shortly after the blizzard hit, which DeVico said is unusual for snowstorms. That declaration authorizes 75 percent federal reimbursement of certain storm-related costs over a 48 hour period. The major disaster declaration, however, would cover an additional 24 hours of costs.

“We feel that the impact of this storm on the state warrants us to get more than 48 hours of assistance and we will be making that case to the federal government,” DeVico said.A total price tag for the storm, which left up to 3 feet of snow in some places, has not yet been determined.

That was welcome news to Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch, whose city was hit hard by the blizzard. Nearly all roads were not made passable until Thursday, six days after the storm arrived.

“We’ve had crews working around the clock,” said Elaine Ficarra, a spokeswoman for the mayor. She said city officials have not yet tallied up their costs.

“It’s an extraordinary event. It’s almost an extraordinary expense,” Ficarra said. “It’s probably going to be outside our normal realm of spending on a normal snowstorm.”

Jim Finley, executive director and CEO of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, said many of his member cities and towns are still trying to add up their costs from the massive storm. He said the hefty bills could cause cash flow problems for some municipalities, because even if the state is granted the additional federal reimbursement, it could be months before any checks are cut.

“The towns have fronted the money,” he said.

Brenda Bergeron, an attorney for DESPP, said some municipalities are just now receiving funds from 2011’s Hurricane Irene and the October 2011 snowstorm. Cities and towns have not yet been reimbursed for costs associated with Superstorm Sandy, which hit the state this past October. She said the federal reimbursement process can be time-consuming, requiring detailed documentation of certain costs.

The state Department of Transportation, meanwhile, has yet to total its costs from the blizzard, but it could be in the millions of dollars.

Judd Everhart, the agency’s spokesman, said DOT crews were on the job continuously, beginning at 4 p.m. on Friday, Feb. 8, and working through Tuesday night. That equates to about 100 hours.

DOT has 1,196 maintenance employees and it typically costs $95,000 an hour when there is a “full call out” of staff, as DOT had for this storm. Maintenance employees work 17-hour shifts, get a three-hour break and return for another 17-hour shift until the job is done, he said.

The agency budgeted $28.6 million for this winter season for snow and ice removal. Everhart estimates the state has probably spent 60 to 70 percent of that budget so far, perhaps more. If DOT goes over budget, he said funds can be moved from other accounts once the season ends.

Dickinson: No work, no snow day pay

As published in the Record Journal on Saturday February 16, 2013

By Andrew Ragali
Record-Journal staff
aragali@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224
Twitter:@AndyRagz

WALLINGFORD - Since Town Hall was closed Monday during the blizzard cleanup effort, Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. is asking town department heads, managers and employees who didn’t report to work to take a vacation day in order to be paid. Dickinson made the announcement in a memo addressed to all town employees on Thursday. Nonessential town employees had been told not to report to work on Monday.

“We believe that collective bargaining contracts do not require the payment of wages unless an employee has reported for work,” Dickinson wrote. “We believe that this is a fair and just resolution of the questions that arise when payment of wages to employees who have not work are raised by those employees who did work.” Some managers and employees were still asked to report to work on Monday to continue snow removal and support “public safety operations,” Dickinson said.

Shelby Jackson, president of United Public Service Employees Union Local 424-14, which represents municipal managers in Wallingford, said “members of our union have expressed concern and the memo is under review.”

He could not confirm if the union plans to file a grievance. Jackson said that, according to contract, the union has until Thursday to file a grievance.

Chuck Ballard, president of Local 1183 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the union representing public works, clerical and sewer workers, could not be reached for comment Friday.

Dickinson explained his reasoning for the memo on Friday, stating, “I have a hard time feeling the town should be paying people when they didn’t work.”

“I don’t want to feel like we are giving money away when it isn’t warranted,” he said.

Dickinson said the employees who did have to work Monday feel “they should be paid something extra” for their time if those who were asked not to show up for work Monday are still paid.

Dickinson said he would have trouble explaining to the public “that we pay people when they are not working.”

In Meriden, Southington and Cheshire, municipal employees are not asked to use vacation days in order to receive payment for a day they were told not to show up. Those municipal governments were open on Monday.

“When we don’t open Town Hall, we don’t charge vacation days,” Southington Town Manager Garry Brumback said.

In Cheshire, Town Manager Michael Milone said charging vacation or personal time is against policy when Town Hall is closed.

“People would say to me, ‘I would have been at work if you didn’t close,’ ” Milone said. “And that’s probably true.”

Caroline Beitman, Meriden’s personnel director, said, “We cannot legally make our unionized employees use personal time if you send them home and shut down the work place.” However, she said, those who couldn’t get to work Monday had to use personal time.

According to the state comptroller’s office, hourly state employees are also paid for days they are asked not to report to work in circumstances such as Monday’s, when state offices were closed.

Workers at Wallingford Town Hall who have not accumulated vacation time will be allowed to make up the lost time. Jackson said two people in the assessor’s office, where he works, were hired recently and have no vacation time. After consulting with the town’s personnel director, Terry Sullivan, he learned that they will be able to work an extra hour per day until the lost time is made up, making Dickinson’s action “more palatable.”

FEMA funds to ease fiscal pain (snow removal from Charlotte)

As published in the Record Journal on Friday February 15, 2013

By Dan Brechlin
Record-Journal staff
dbrechlin@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2266
Twitter: @DanBrechlinRJ

“Wallingford spent more than $800,000 on that storm (October 2011), and more than $900,000 on Tropical Storm Irene. Last weekend’s blizzard is expected to be a significant cost, though Wallingford avoided the added expense of hiring numerous private contractors. Just two pieces of equipment were rented, and one operator was hired.”

“Last weekend’s storm drew the quickest disaster declaration (for FEMA reimbursement)”

 

Municipal leaders will spend the next several days tallying pay, fuel, equipment maintenance, contracting, and other costs related to last weekend’s blizzard. The storm is expected to exact a heavy price.

Earlier this week, President Barack Obama declared Connecticut a disaster area, meaning municipalities will be eligible for reimbursement from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for expenses incurred during part of the storm.

The area is used to this. Since the beginning of 2011, it has qualified for FEMA reimbursement for an early 2011 snowstorm, Tropical Storm Irene, the October snowstorm of 2011, and Superstorm Sandy. Last weekend’s storm drew the quickest disaster declaration.

“Even before the beginning of the storm we started calculating our expenses, including pre-treating the roads,” said David Bowen, Meriden’s deputy fire chief and emergency management director.

Typically, FEMA reimburses for 48 hours of the storm and recovery costs, Bowen said. For last weekend’s snowstorm, because of the record-breaking totals, 75 percent of the costs were reimbursed over 72 hours.

The total costs associated with last weekend’s storm have yet to be determined, but they are expected to be significant. Southington Town Manager Garry Brumback typically budgets for about six storms a year, and said last weekend’s blizzard added up to several storms.

“Even with the FEMA reimbursement, this will account for two or three storms worth of expense,” Brumback said. “Without FEMA, this would be devastating.”

Southington’s budget for snow removal this fiscal year is $670,000. Like other municipalities, Southington paid a high fee for maintenance on its equipment because the large amount of snow caused numerous breakdowns and equipment failures. The long time spent on the roads also lead to high fuel costs and a significant overtime cost.

“We wanted to get our town back to normal as quickly as possible,” Brumback said, and that also added costs, including the hiring of additional private contractors.

Though he expects a big bill, Cheshire Town Manager Michael Milone said it will likely not be as high as the tab for the October snowstorm in 2011. That storm left heavy damage and thousands in the area without power.

“This will probably be $150,000 to $200,000,” after FEMA reimbursement, said Milone. “We were better off than most towns and still had four or five days of hard work. Some other communities, it will take a lot longer.”

Dealing with the October 2011 storm, Cheshire spent $530,000 before any reimbursement. In addition to cleanup, paying for town buildings to run on generators was a significant cost.

Wallingford spent more than $800,000 on that storm, and more than $900,000 on Tropical Storm Irene. Last weekend’s blizzard is expected to be a significant cost, though Wallingford avoided the added expense of hiring numerous private contractors. Just two pieces of equipment were rented, and one operator was hired.

Before this past weekend’s snowfall, Meriden had already used half of its $500,000 snow removal budget. In 2011, the city spent nearly $840,000 on the January snowstorm and more than $1 million on the October snowstorm.

“It was done fairly well; there’s no real way to clear aloof the streets in one day,” Bowen said, noting that sometimes events happen and bills have to be paid. “It’s just like if your roof at your house starts to leak and you have to get it fixed. You have to respond and that’s what it costs sometimes.”

Bowen said calculating the total cost is complicated because of the many types of expenses. Though municipal leaders expressed confidence in paying the high bill, Brumback said he is hoping that there are not any more significant storms in the near future.

“If we’re at all fortunate and Mother Nature smiles on us, we will still have the ability to have a budget for one or two more storms going forward,” he said.