Wallingford will seek state grant for Simpson Court parking lot

As published in the Record Journal Wednesday September 26, 2012

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

WALLINGFORD — After lengthy and often contentious periods of public comments at a regular meeting Tuesday, town councilors gave the green light for the town to seek a $500,000 state grant for upgrades to the Simpson Court parking lot.

“I’ve never seen so much energy expelled trying to kill a good project for … Wallingford,” Councilor John Le-Tourneau, a Republican, said of statements by opponents of the plan. “This is the front yard of our town, we have to fix it up. If we do nothing, we will have nothing.”

The council voted 6-2 to allow the town to apply for the grant and again for a separate resolution supporting improvements to the lot, with councilors Nicholas Economopoulos and Jason Zandri, both Democrats, casting the “no” votes. Republican Craig Fishbein, another opponent of the project, was absent. The grant would come from the newly created Main Street Investment Fund that’s administered by the Office of Policy and Management. Friday marks the deadline to submit the grant application. There is no guarantee the town would receive the grant. Projected upgrades include new lighting, a new retaining wall, drainage work, paving and other improvements.

Councilors said they’ve considered the proposal carefully since it was first presented at a Sept. 11 council meeting, with some saying they’ve taken time off from work to research the topic.

The vote followed a lengthy public comment period with both supporters and opponents of the project, and the specter of another referendum loomed large.

Last November, residents rejected a plan approved by the Town Council to use $500,000 in town funds to repair and up-grade the same lot, which is owned by Simpson Court property owners but was built by the town and has been leased year by year by the town since 1961 for public parking.

This year’s plan is similar in scope but differs in funding. Money would come from the state grant, and there would be a $25,000 contribution from each of the four Simpson Court property owners and $10,000 from Holy Trinity School. The Simpson Court owners would receive reimbursement for half the cost, but Holy Trinity would not. If the grant is approved by OPM, the lot would be leased by the town for 30 years.

Despite the difference in funding sources, some say the public still opposes the project.

Resident Robert Gross, who, along with Geno Zandri, led the petition drive to call a referendum last year, asked Town Attorney Gerald Farrell Sr. at the meeting to have paperwork for another referendum ready for residents who “are upset by this and want a referendum.” Last year Gross and Zandri collected more than 2,500 signatures from registered Wallingford voters to force the referendum.

Zandri said the community made its message on the project clear last year, and councilors should reject the new plan.

“Think about who you’re representing in this town — this referendum, the parking lot thing, was definitely overturned overwhelmingly. If you do, you’ll vote this thing down,” Zandri said.

Representatives of business development groups such as Wallingford Center Inc. and the town’s Economic Development Commission overwhelmingly supported the plan, along with several residents.

“This is a community resource, it is not a parking lot,” said EDC Chairman Joe Mirra. “When you take into consideration the amount of world headquarters this town has, Choate right down the block … that parking lot is giving a statement every day.”

Resident Shauna Simon-Glidden said that if the town does not try for the money, it will just go to another area.

“The money’s going to go somewhere. This is going to invest in our town,” Simon-Glidden said. “I think it’s really important to look at some of the surrounding areas where people have to pay for parking — which would be a detriment for Wallingford.”

Resident Richard Caplan said he thinks the town should apply for the grant, but use the funds for the town-owned lots — most notably the lots behind businesses farther down Center Street, where there are more business vacancies, rather than North Main Street properties that he said are doing well.

“This is a matter of priorities. The mayor has found those who need it the least to give the most to,” Caplan said, alleging cronyism among councilors and the mayor. “These are million-dollar properties … we’re going to spend half a million dollars when the town’s parking lots are in such crappy shape.”

“I kind of resent some of the statements that you made, Mr. Caplan,” said Council Chairman Robert Parisi, saying the councilors would vote their consciences — not because of any backroom deals or friendships.

Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. said that because the town had already done the planning, design and other preparatory work for the Simpson Court site, it was the only project far enough along to be submitted, considering the grant’s time constraints. Town officials say they heard about the grant in late June, but didn’t have details until an early August workshop held by the state.

“We have something that is already designed and there is no way we can put together our grant applications for other sites (in time),” Dickinson said. Upgrading the other parking lots farther down the hill on Center Street would also likely call for public-private partnerships, as the public lots are small and separated by private lots. “Otherwise we’ll be doing little small areas within private areas.”

Other residents asked what would occur if the town received the grants but had hidden costs, or wasn’t given the full amount. Dickinson said the project would not begin if there was not enough money for it — that he wouldn’t supplement with town funds.

Don Roe, of the town’s Program Planning staff, said he believed there was a contingency fund within the cost estimate.

In other business, the council approved a one-year agreement with Local 1183, representing 135 town clerical staff and employees in the Sewer, Engineering, and Public Works departments. The contract comes with a 1.75 percent pay increase, according to Personnel Director Terence Sullivan.

Councilors also approved a transfer that would allocate $100,000 to the town’s Workers’ Compensation reserve account from excess funds from the last fiscal year’s insurance funds for the town and the Board of Education.

Will there be another referendum over a Wallingford parking lot?

As published in the Record Journal Thursday September 27, 2012

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

WALLINGFORD – The Simpson Court parking lot could be the subject of another referendum, after the Town Council gave town staff the go ahead to apply for a state grant that could provide $500,000 for repairs and upgrades to the site.

Several residents vocally opposed the town’s plans for the lot at Tuesday night’s meeting, and resident Robert Gross requested during public comment that Town Attorney Gerald Farrell Sr. provide him the paperwork to start the referendum procedures.

Gross, along with Geno Zandri, led last year’s fight against the town’s plan to make $500,000 in repairs, using town money, to the privately owned but publicly used Simpson Court lot. The two led a group that gathered more than 2,500 signatures of registered voters on a petition to force a November 2011 referendum. Residents voted down the plan, 4,120-2,768.

In this year’s plan, the repairs would be the same, but the funding source would differ. In a 6-2 vote Tuesday night, the council gave the town the green light to apply for a grant from the state’s Main Street Improvement Fund, administered by the Office of Policy and Management. The town built the lot in 1961 on the land of Simpson Court property owners and has since been leasing it year to year for public parking.

Each of the four Simpson Court property owners would contribute $25,000 toward repairs under the current proposal, with half of that to be reimbursed by money from the grant. Holy Trinity School — which would as part of the project get repairs to a retaining wall on its property — would put in $10,000, without any reimbursement. If improvements are made, the owners would grant the town a 30 year lease.

Gross could not be reached for comment Wednesday, but Geno Zandri said that the group was discussing whether to petition for a referendum now, or wait to see if the town received the money or not. The public would have another chance to oppose the lot improvements if the money came in and the council made a resolution to accept it for use on the lot, Farrell said Tuesday night.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that if they get the grant, there will be a referendum,” Geno Zandri said. “As far as I’m concerned, it’s identical to what we had before. It’s taxpayers’ money no matter where it comes from.”

If residents decide to petition for a referendum on the resolution, they will have 30 days from Wednesday to obtain about 2,460 signatures, or 10 percent of those registered to vote, according to Town Clerk Barbara Thompson.

From there, the names need to be authenticated by the clerk’s office, Corporation Counsel Janis Small said. Then, councilors would have another meeting in which they would be given the opportunity to repeal their vote. If they choose not to, an election must be held within 60 days, Small said.

The last referendum cost the town about $30,000 to pay for ballots, installation of phones, poll workers, costs of renting special trucks for deliveries and other costs, Republican Registrar of Voters Chet Miller said.

It would be “a couple of months at least,” before a vote would be held, according to Small.

At the meeting, some councilors said they felt some residents who signed last year’s petition and some who voted had been provided misinformation or partial information by people working to overturn the decision.

John Sullivan, a Democrat, said Wednesday that he had seen this first hand at last year’s Celebrate Wallingford.

“What I have a problem with is when people don’t tell residents, voters, the facts. I’m sure that the greater majority of those soliciting told the truth and answered questions honestly,” Sullivan said. “However, I witnessed several instances where the solicitor was not telling the truth.”

He said he heard a solicitor embellish the plan in speaking to residents, saying there were connections between councilors and the mayor and the business owners at the site, and that he shouldn’t trust Sullivan when he came up to talk to him.

Geno Zandri denied Sullivan’s claim. “We were above board on everything we did,” he said. Zandri did say some voters may have been confused when voting because people had to vote yes to say that they didn’t want the project.

Though confusing to some, the wording was done by statute, Small said. Residents were voting to repeal a resolution, not voting in favor of something, she said. So residents were voting “Yes” to repeal the council’s decision to repair the lot, not “yes” for repairs on the lot.

Town Councilor Jason Zandri, a Democrat, who was one of two “no” votes on the mayor’s proposal on Tuesday, said he thinks it would be logical for those interested in holding a referendum to wait to see if the town receives the money or not. Jason Zandri is Geno Zandri’s son, and was heavily involved in the last referendum, before he was elected a town councilor.

Jason Zandri said he figured the Tuesday vote would go as it did. “I think everybody up there voted their conscience,” Zandri said.

He said he thinks the approval sets a bad precedent for future public-private parking lot repair projects.

Tom Laffin, a Republican, said it all comes down to the perception of the Simpson Court parking lot, saying these projects should not be portrayed as spending public money on private land.

“We’re going to lease it — in a sense we legally own it for 30 years,” Laffin said. “You can’t make the argument that it’s private property.”

The town clerk’s office and the Law Department each said no one had been by to pick up the paperwork for a petition as of late afternoon Wednesday.

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.

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.

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.

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.

FACEBOOK - Wallingford Parking Lot Referendum - November 14, 2011

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

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

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

FROM WALLINGFORD - The referendum on November 14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter to the editor - A few facts

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

ROSEMARY RASCATI, WALLINGFORD

Parking lot move gets PAC support

As published in the Record Journal, Tuesday September 27, 2011

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

WALLINGFORD — A political action committee has been formed to support the Town Council’s Simpson Court decision, which voters will be asked to decide on in a referendum Nov. 14.

The group, “Support Our Downtown,” was started by Republican Town Committee Vice Chairman Christopher Diorio to draw support for the council’s decision to enter a 30-year lease agreement with local property owners to repair and maintain a parking lot in return for free public parking.

Diorio, a 40-year-old father of three, said the deal is good for downtown businesses and the community.

Opponents say it is inappropriate to invest town money in private land. Last month a group opposing the lease agreement, headed by Robert Gross, collected enough signatures to force a referendum.

Diorio, who works in the Hartford public affairs office of the state Senate Republicans, said people from both parties support the lease agreement.

“I’m not trying to make this into a political football here,” he said. “Without an agreement, the owners may very well decide to restrict access to the property. Where can you go in the state of Connecticut where the property owners have a parking lot and are willing to go into a business merger with municipal government? It’s the town, not the owners, who will control the parking lot. Thirty years is a long time.”

Both Republican and Democratic councilors voted in favor of the lease agreement. Republican Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. is also a supporter.

One property owner, John McGuire, has said that if the referendum fails he will pull out of the current annual lease agreement with the town and restrict access, possibly charging for parking. It is not the first time Diorio has been involved in a referendum. A political action committee he started, Save Our Charter, made more than 5,000 phone calls to local residents in 2009, urging them to vote against seven proposed amendments, one of which would have reduced the number of council votes needed to override a mayoral veto. Each proposed amendment was voted down by a margin of more than 1,500 votes.

Diorio’s committee faces the group against the lease, Citizens Against Private Parking Deal. Gross, who headed the petition drive to hold the referendum, is the PAC treasurer and has also successfully campaigned against council decisions in the past. He helped defeat a referendum five years ago that kept the town from selling its Wooding-Caplan property to a local developer.

Gross, a Democrat, said Monday that he had not heard of Diorio’s PAC and was busy collecting money and creating flyers and signs.
“This is not a party issue, this is about the town spending funds on private property,” he said. “We have no political affiliation with either party.”

The lease allows the town to spend up to $500,000 for capital improvements and mandates that the town repave the 130-space lot, install lighting and make other repairs as needed.

The town and some building owners along Simpson Court, off North Main Street, have been in a year-to-year lease agreement since 1961 for free parking in return for lot maintenance. Decades later, at least one property owner tried to make a longer arrangement and said the town wasn’t properly maintaining the lot.

Under the lease, private property owners will be given 90 passes for unlimited parking and 40 parking spaces will be available to the public with a four-hour limit.

Wallingford Referendum Facts

As provided on the Wallingford Referendum Facts blog, which “has been created so as to give the residents of the Town of Wallingford a fair and unbiased account of the facts behind the referendum taking place on November 14, 2011. Whatever your position, please take the time to vote on that day.”

This is NOT my own blog; as you may know I have four (two concerning Wallingford directly, one personal blog and a technology blog).

Bottom line – these are some great facts that will allow you to review the information and make up your mind between now and the November 14th referendum vote.
Over the next week I will be posting online all the leases, prior and proposed, so that people might get informed and make up their own mind.

Having said that as well, I am fully on the side to repeal the Council’s decision, but whatever your thoughts I agree with the blog creators:

”Whatever your position, please take the time to vote on that day” (November 14, 2011).

WALLINGFORD - Citizens Against Private Parking Deal

There is a new website at http://www.500kparkingdeal.com/ set up by the organizers of the petition drive.

On the site they have a lot of pertinent information, they cross post to the Wallingford Referendum Facts blog (which may or may not be their blog – I am not sure of the identity of the actual owners) and they have PDFs for the four lease proposals.

(I was going to post these myself but now that they are here I will simply cross reference. I will still put up the original lease since it appears to not be online there).

They also have a page there as to how you can help if that is something you wish to do.

Bottom line – it’s your town, get informed, get involved and VOTE at the local election on Tuesday November 8, 2011 and at the referendum on Monday November 14, 2011.

For or against – make sure your voice is heard.

Meet the man behind the petition - Wooding-Caplan controversy lit a fire in Gross

As published in the Record Journal, Monday September 19, 2011

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

WALLINGFORD — The leader of a recent petition drive that will force a town-wide referendum on whether to overturn a Town Council decision on a parking lot agreement is no stranger to politics or rallying support for public causes in town.

Robert Gross, 51, has lived in town his whole life and is the son of Wallingford attorney Leon Gross. He is a Quinnipiac University graduate, holding a bachelor’s degree in history and a Master of Business Administration degree. He works in insurance and has been married for 26 years.

Gross is one of four local residents who attend every meeting of the Town Council and take notes. The group is not shy about challenging the council on issues relating to public money and the environment, two topics that never fail to pique his interest, Gross said.

“There needs to be more open government, a breakdown of the wall between the two parties,” he said. “Everything should be done for the good of the community, and that isn’t done on certain issues.”

It wasn’t until the Town Council tried to sell the Wooding-Caplan parcel uptown to a private developer that the normally reserved Gross felt compelled to get involved, he said. He and a small group organized a petition drive, gathered enough signatures for a referendum, and overturned the vote to sell the land.

“I always paid attention to what was going on and voted, but when I saw what was going on (with Wooding-Caplan) I wanted to get involved — and I did, in a big way, I guess,” he said. “We did a lot then as a group, and I kept at it ever since.”

Since the Wooding-Caplan referendum in 2006, he has petitioned to create a Charter Revision Committee, and most recently, helped organize a referendum to reverse the council’s decision to enter into a 30year agreement with property owners on Simpson Court to maintain and upgrade the parking lot in return for free public parking.
In 2009, Gross made his first foray into politics when he ran for a seat on the council. A Democrat since 1978, Gross lost the race and has not run for any office since.

“I never say never — but at this point, no, it’s not the time to run,” he said.

But while Gross says he likes to stay out of the limelight, his criticism and questions on the environmental impact of a trash-to-energy plant in town, Covanta Energy, drew overseas attention this summer.

Previously owned by Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority, the plant was cited for emissions violations two times in three years while managed by New Jersey-based Covanta, which recently paid a $400,000 fine to the state. Gross grilled Covanta representatives at town meetings over the violations and demanded to know whether the plant on South Cherry Street had impacted the health of the community.

After reading Gross’s comments in local newspapers, producers from the British Broadcasting Corp. contacted him and flew to the U.S. to interview him at his Long Hill Road house on his thoughts about Covanta, which is trying to open a plant in Wales and is drawing opposition there.

Town Council Chairman Robert Parisi said Gross’s input is always valued by the council, but his widely varying areas of concern in town politics are often unfocused. During the public question segment of council meetings, local political watchdogs, sometimes including Gross, take an opportunity to expound on personal beliefs rather than pose a series of questions.

“I think sometimes people forget it’s a question-and-answer session. If we get too far off the subject matter, it borders on opinion,” he said. “I would prefer we stick a little closer to what the question is and allow the answer to come forward. He exercises his right to speak publicly and I put in my time to make sure he has that right. I say fine if you’re doing what the law says you can do, and what a lot of us gave up a part of our lives to do.”

Gross said he’s seen many changes in his hometown over the years and has watched the population grow, opening the doors to many of the problems — like drug use — that larger towns and small cities face.

“I’m born and raised here and I’m very committed to my town,” he said. “I feel like I have a civic duty for more transparency.”

FROM WALLINGFORD - Contrasting approaches to government

As published in the Record Journal, Sunday September 18, 2011

If I were a civics teacher, a viewing of last Tuesday’s Wallingford Town Council meeting would be a class requirement, and it would serve as a textbook example of why the functions of government should be carried out at the lowest level possible or, described another way, the level closest to the people.

On the one hand were the votes to repeal Town Council decisions to lease a piece of private property for 30 years and to spend public money on its improvement or face a referendum on the issue. On the other hand, was the report on the placement of the railroad station by the project engineer for the $647 million commuter rail project where the only impact that the citizenry of Wallingford might possibly have is on its location.

When you put these two projects side by side as was done the other night, it becomes clear why so many of us advocate for leaving as much authority and responsibility at the local level of government, or at least the lowest possible level that makes sense. Our ability to enforce accountability and transparency on those that run our various governments dissipates exponentially as decisions are made by higher and most distant entities. Here are three aspects of what I mean by that:

1. The citizen’s impact on government: the Town Council made two decisions regarding the parking lot. Those decisions have been challenged by some voters. First, they were able to argue for a repeal of those decisions in an open meeting directly with the people that made them. Not having achieved that goal, they were able to secure sufficient signatures to allow every voter in Wallingford to weigh in on the issue in a referendum. The railroad project?

Well, maybe, just maybe, if, in their judgment, they deem our comments worthy, we may, just possibly, perhaps be able to get the State of Connecticut and the Federal Railroad Administration to … listen to us regarding where to locate the station. That is the sum total of citizen impact on this $647 million project. As for any other citizen comments the other night: it was “this deal is done; sit down and be quiet” time, according to one councilor’s comments.

2. How these projects are paid for: The Town Council of Wallingford is paying for the parking lot improvements immediately from a capital and non-recurring fund financed by current contributions from our Electric Division. How is the commuter railroad being paid for? Well, the State of Connecticut is borrowing its hundreds of millions from us and our children. The feds are paying their hundreds of millions of dollars with … Happy Bucks borrowed from our great grandchildren. In other words, local government finances its wishes with real money; the state with sort of real money to be paid back years from now, and the feds with … money borrowed from … well, we really don’t know, do we?

3. Direct results: Wallingford Town Council spends $500 thousand. Result: parking lot improvements that everyone who owns a car in Wallingford can use. State and feds spend one thousand times that amount and we get: a startup commuter service that will be utilized by 6,000 residents statewide. But to justify this staggering amount of money spent on benefiting so few, they trot out the old impossible-to-quantify, years-and-years down the road “economic development” chestnut.

I am not for a second suggesting that the decisions to be made in building railroads or other similarly complex undertakings be the province of local authorities. That is clearly unworkable. However, the point I am making is that, in America today, we citizens are ceding more and more authority to higher and higher levels of government.

That Town Council meeting contained two starkly contrasting approaches to government. Unless we are wise, we will lose the one and be crushed by the other.

FROM WALLINGFORD - Referendum? Hold your nose and vote

Originally published in the Record Journal Sunday August 28, 2011

As written by Mike Brodinsky

Some folks in Wallingford are circulating a petition, which, if signed by enough registered voters, would result in a referendum on the Council’s decision, by a divided vote, to approve 30-year leases for the privately-owned parking area in back of Simpson Court. Historically, the whole area in back of four buildings has been used for public parking, although only a portion of it has been leased to the Town. The proposed new leases, covering all the area, would enable the Town to build and maintain a new parking lot at an estimated cost of $500,000. Although money matters to everybody, the controversy is not so much about the amount being spent. The parking lot is a relatively modest project. The controversy is stoked more by principle than by costs.

You should sign the petition.

Your signature does not necessarily mean that you are against the project. Because public officials have done a terrible job explaining the details and proposed terms, many voters are confused and skeptical. You should sign the petition if you have any questions or doubts. A referendum buys more time to learn, so we can make an informed choice at the polls, before the decision is irrevocable.

Proponents of the new parking lot reasonably claim the deal will result in significant benefits. Because many people park behind Simpson Court, the town would install a spiffy new parking lot there, with 130 spaces for cars. The new lot probably wouldn’t add many extra spaces to what is there now, but it would help make the uptown area safer and more welcoming. People would experience this enhancement very personally just by parking. (Of course, they park there now, but it’s kind of depressing.) Finally, if the leases are not approved, what happens next? If this project doesn’t get completed soon, won’t the property look the same or worse for the foreseeable future? That’s not good for anybody.

Opponents, on the other hand, reasonably believe that the deal between the town and the owners of the properties is not balanced. They say the property owners are being unduly enriched, because, when the leases expire, Wallingford’s parking lot is theirs to keep. Moreover, as soon as the lot is built, the value of the private properties would go up. A new parking lot, built at the public’s expense, fully maintained and cared for by the town for 30 years, but available for a new owner’s tenants and customers, adds value. As a result, an owner should be able to sell his Simpson Court property for more money because of all the public funding. Wallingford wouldn’t be reimbursed one penny for its costs.

Opponents also suggest that if the town is going to spend money to provide improved parking, it should be spent for parking in the Wooding-Caplan area, across the street, which Wallingford already owns.

Who pays for the snowplowing and pavement repairs under the proposed leases? The town. How much more might it pay? How much less might the property owners pay? That has never been explained. Do the leases allow the property owners to claim any special parking privileges the general public would not have? Take a look at the leases. It’s revealing. Town Hall needs to be more clear about comparative maintenance costs, whether all parkers would be treated equally, and if not, why not. If there’s any doubt about these details, sign the petition to force disclosure of all the information you need.

While some are enthusiastic about the plan, others are adamantly opposed. Other voters like me are caught in the middle. They appreciate the benefits of the project, and are not offended by the costs. But they suspect that local officials could have negotiated a much better deal. Whichever way those people vote, it’s likely they will be holding their noses. It’s their Constitutional right to do that.

Parking-deal foes rap Nov. 14 vote

As published in the Record Journal, Friday September 16, 2011

By Robert Cyr

Record-Journal staff

rcyr@record-journal.com

(203) 317-2224 

WALLINGFORD — Supporters of the Simpson Court referendum say the Town Council decision to hold the vote after municipal elections is an effort to draw voters away from the cause.

After long debate late Tuesday night, and questions for Republican Registrar of Voters Chester Miller, the council decided to hold the referendum from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday, Nov. 14, at three polling places. The municipal election is Tuesday, Nov. 8.

The referendum asks voters to consider reversing a council vote to appropriate up to $500,000 for parking lot improvements behind four buildings along Simpson Court in return for 30 years of free parking.

The petition for the town wide referendum was started by Robert Gross, who was also instrumental in organizing a referendum in 2006 that overturned a council deal to sell the Wooding-Caplan property to a private developer.

Opponents of the Simpson Court arrangement say the town should not be investing public money in private property.
“They don’t want the vote on Nov. 8 because the pulse of the people is against the parking lot,” Gross said Thursday. “They’re concerned the numbers will be even greater on that day.”

Council Chairman Robert Parisi said the council’s decision Tuesday was made after questions to Miller as to how legal or realistic it would be to hold the referendum on the same day as local elections. Miller told the council the town faced a large number of state mandates requiring a minimum number of counting machines that would strain the town’s supply and the space needed for the equipment.

Miller said Thursday that it would require lengthy, error- prone counting of paper ballots.

“I just think it’s inefficient,” Parisi said. “We were told towns with small voter registration and low voter counts might do that, but with the number of people we have registered, it’s inefficient and very difficult to do. If all the machines broke down, we might have to do that, but it isn’t the recommended procedure.”

The Town Charter requires 20 percent of registered voters — 4,982 — to participate in a referendum to make it valid.

Gross, who’s confident support will be strong on Nov. 14, said he and a group of volunteers would be registering a political action committee in Town Hall today and begin asking for donations to send out fliers and make signs advertising the referendum. He said the spending would be “nowhere near” the thousands of dollars spent on the Wooding- Caplan referendum campaign.

On Thursday, Town Councilor Nicholas Economopoulos said Miller misled the council with vague information that made more traditional voting methods using paper ballots seem too difficult, and dissuaded the council from considering a local election and referendum on the same night. Along with requiring the paper ballot method, holding the referendum on the same day as local elections would strain the available election staff on an already busy voting day, Miller said Thursday. The referendum is expected to cost more than $30,000.

“Why go back to the stone age?” Miller said. “Hand counting ballots is not an accurate process, as we’ve proven time and time again. It is a legal way to do that, but it’s archaic and it’s just impossible to monitor and guarantee the integrity of it.” Along with Councilor Craig Fishbein, Economopoulos was one of two votes against the 7-2 council vote to enter the agreement.

Economopoulos said he argued to have three polling places instead of the two proposed and didn’t think the council would budge on the date.

“Seven of the members on the council want the lot to go through, so, in my opinion, for those members it doesn’t matter what day you can vote on it,” he said. “I voted for it (Nov. 14), because it was all I knew I would get in the end.”

Parking question too late for vote on Nov. 8

As published in the Record Journal, Thursday September 15, 2011

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

WALLINGFORD — Nov. 14 is the date a town-wide referendum will take place on the Town Council’s controversial decision to upgrade a private parking lot in return for public parking.

The council set the date late into its regular meeting Tuesday night. The referendum vote will likely cost more than $30,000.

Putting the referendum on Nov. 8 election ballot was not an option. The secretary of the state’s office would have needed to be contacted by Sept. 8, which was also the petition drive’s deadline, said Town Clerk Barbara Thompson.

“That was impossible from the start,” she said. “It’s not something we’ve ever done — we’re not familiar with how to do that.”

Voters will be asked to consider overturning the council’s Aug. 9 decision to make up to $500,000 in upgrades to a group lot behind four buildings along Simpson Court in return for 30 years of free public parking. Those opposing the council’s decision say town money should not be invested in private property.

Robert Gross, organizer of the petition drive to hold the referendum, said the Nov. 14 date likely won’t affect voter turnout.

Gross was also instrumental in a referendum on the town owned Wooding-Caplan property five years ago, a vote that was held during the summer, when most people were on vacation.

The town bought the 3.5acre Wooding-Caplan parcel in May 1992 for $1.5 million. In April 2006, the council voted to sell the property to local developer Joseph DiNatale for $409,000. Four months later, voters rejected the council’s decision 6,659-413.

“We wouldn’t have done it if we weren’t confident we’d get a good turnout,” Gross said Tuesday night. “We did it once before, and we’ll do it again.”

For the Simpson Court referendum, Gross and other volunteers, including Town Councilor Nicholas Economopoulos, collected far more than the 2,491 signatures needed, or 10 percent of registered voters in town. Thompson certified 2,634 names and had not counted about another 600 signatures.

At least 20 percent of registered voters must participate for the referendum to count.

The Nov. 14 vote will be held from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. at polling places in Lyman Hall’s Vo-Ag center, the Senior Center, and a third polling place at either Moran Middle School or Sheehan High School. Registrar of Voters Chester Miller said a decision on the school will be made in the coming days.

The cost of the referendum will likely exceed $30,000, he said.

“Things are more expensive than they were for the Wooding- Caplan vote,” he said. “We have to pay for things we didn’t have to before.”

Due to changes in election rules, the town now has to pick up the bill for paper ballots, and the 8,000 ballots Miller will probably order for the referendum could cost as much as $1 per ballot, he said. Add to that about $16,000 for staff to work the polls and custodial staff to keep the buildings open, and about $1,300 for memory cards for electronic voting machines, he said.

The town owns 20 electronic ballot-scanning machines, and nine are required for elections. A referendum vote on the same night as the general election would require another nine machines with staff for each unit and both personnel and back-up machines mandated by the state would be lacking, Miller said.

Other costs include setting up dedicated phone lines between election officials and making sure the different machines and polling booths are outside proscribed distances from each other, in separate rooms.

Each voting station requires separate tables for the ballot clerk, moderator, assistant registrar and official ballot checker, with a minimum of 36 square feet around each voting machine and 25 square feet around each voting booth, Miller said.

“Everybody thinks it’s clear cut, but it’s not,” he said.