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

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

By Robert Cyr
Record-Journal staff

rcyr@record-journal.com 

(203) 317-2224

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

The forums are being sponsored by the Wallingford Community Women.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both age sets encompass a span of 12 years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letters to the Editor regarding Simpson Court Parking

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

Equal Investment

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

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

Bad decision

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

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

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

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

KATHY AVERY, WALLINGFORD

Knows better?

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

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

 

One-sided terms

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

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

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

 

Public money

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

 

Bunk

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

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

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

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

Senior voters are a bloc to reckon with in November

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FROM WALLINGFORD - Bond ratings and perspective

As published in the Record Journal, Sunday October 9, 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 Town’s credit or bond rating comes up during every municipal political campaign season. And it should. A good rating is a sign of financial strength. It’s a legitimate credential, measure of the Town’s financial wellbeing and ability to pay off debt. Wallingford has the best bond rating possible. Let’s not minimize that. The bond rating is a source of civic pride. Fair enough. Let’s give credit where credit is due. But let’s not overdo it and stretch the meaning of a great bond rating beyond the breaking point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article posted on Examiner.com

by Maggie DellaRocco – Griffin
Hartford Business Networking Examiner

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

Continue reading on Examiner.com

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

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

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

Vinnie Testa for Mayor - Family Pasta Dinner and Campaign Rally

Vinnie Testa for Mayor
Family Pasta Dinner and Campaign Rally


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


VFW Hall 23 Prince Street


$20 / $30 per couple


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


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

AGENDA WALLINGFORD TOWN COUNCIL

TOWN OF WALLINGFORD, CONNECTICUT

REGULAR TOWN COUNCIL MEETING

Town Council Chambers

TUESDAY

OCTOBER 11, 2011

6:30 P.M

Moment of Silence

1. Pledge of Allegiance and Roll Call

2. Correspondence

3. Consent Agenda

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

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

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

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

4. Items Removed from the Consent Agenda

5. PUBLIC QUESTION & ANSWER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Building Commission

Wooding Caplan

Insurance Commission

Parking Authority

-Councilor Nick Economopoulos

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

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

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

Wallingford council OKs tax deal for Leigus Road office building

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

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

WALLINGFORD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FROM WALLINGFORD - Of ballot and position

As published in the Record Journal, Sunday September 25, 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 ballot is now set for the election of Town Councilors on November 8. The names of the six Democratic candidates for Council are in the top row. That’s Row A. Democrats get the top row because the Governor is Democratic. That’s the rule. The row of Republican candidates is below on Row B.

This format may make it appear to some that we have six individual, head-to-head contests with a Democrat on the top row facing off against the Republican directly below. But as experienced voters know, that’s not the case. Voters have nine votes, and they can select any candidate from Row A or Row B. A voter may spread nine votes around at his/her complete and uncontrolled discretion, regardless of the rows or positioning of the candidates within the rows Nevertheless, the ballot can cause pre-election angst for some candidates. Some may be concerned about their position on the ballot, which is chosen by lot. A candidate may fret, “Will I be first in the row or last? Who will be above (or below) my name? Will that matter?” They all want a good “draw.” But what is a “good draw” and what makes it good?

Republican Councilor Rosemary Rascati said she’d be looking at the name above hers because she is concerned that the “matchup” might affect her vote count. She is worried that some may vote for whoever is above her name and wrongly think that they cannot, therefore, vote for her. Newcomer candidate Democrat Debbie Reynolds’ name is above Rosemary’s. Debbie probably has similar thoughts about Rosemary’s name being below hers. Typically, a candidate wants to first on the row. There is no chance of being overlooked in that spot. Incumbent Councilor Craig Fishbein, however, downplayed his first-in-line spot on Row B, and he said that he’d rather be second in line. Maybe Craig is attempting to tamp down expectations. But the way Craig explains it, he thinks he might have a technical advantage if he had the second position on the ballot and not the first position. Incumbent Democratic Councilor John Sullivan is on top of Craig, first in line in Row A. I doubt that John is complaining about that draw.

Has any candidate ever said that he wanted to be at the end of the row? If any candidate said that, it might be Democratic Councilor Nick Economopoulos, whose name is dead last on Row A. He’s on top of newcomer, Republican Tom Laffin who drew the last spot on the Republican row. A last place draw on the ballot is a tough assignment for a rookie, according to conventional wisdom. Tom probably wants to say to voters, “Please do not use up all nine votes before you get to me.” But for being last, maybe Tom gets a beneficial underdog effect, whatever that is.

Even though candidates worry about it, the position of a name on the ballot makes no difference in Wallingford.

What makes the difference is lots of personal contacts and name recognition. With lawn signs and newspaper ads, and in some cases door-to-door campaigning, candidates try to create name recognition by being visible, hoping voters will perceive favorable distinctions while offering little substance. So, if you own a corner lot in a high traffic area, your property is very valuable to a candidate looking for a lawn sign location. Just don’t corner that candidate with a tough question.

Campaigns for Council are not based upon the issues, usually, because running on the issues is tough, risky, expensive — - and, therefore, rare. If a candidate gets too specific about where he stands, he could lose votes. Specific issues are very complicated. Ads and lawn signs aren’t. Ads and lawn signs add to valuable name recognition without the risks that go along with explaining issues. So issues get lost.

By the way, what are the issues in this campaign?

Decision on tax program coming Tuesday

As published in the Record Journal, Saturday September 24, 2011

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

WALLINGFORD — The Town Council will decide Tuesday whether to allow developer Workstage Connecticut LLC to enter into a seven-year tax abatement program after resuming improvements to the future headquarters of Anthem Blue Cross.

The 305,000-square-foot building at 110 Leigus Road, which was mostly completed in 2007, was originally built for Mortgage Lenders Network USA Inc., but that company went bankrupt shortly after the subprime mortgage industry imploded the same year.

Workstage spent about $20 million on the project and is finishing up construction for Anthem’s move after years of inactivity, scheduled for completion in September 2012. Anthem will occupy 217,764 square feet of the campus.

“Seeing the facility come into play is a really positive step on so many different fronts,” said Donald W. Roe, economic development coordinator. “It was just sort of sitting there for years as an empty shell.”

Under the tax incentive program created in 2005, Workstage will not have to pay 20 percent of the property’s taxes for seven years. Workstage is the seventh-highest taxpayer in town with property assessed at $20,151,880. The annual break on Workstage’s tax bill would be $55,467.

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

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

The program, extended for three years in early 2010, is a payoff for the town in the long run and helps attract businesses that may stay in the area for a long time, said Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr.

The town’s grand list, which declined for the first time in more than 20 years, caused a revenue loss of $4 million at the current tax rate. Dickinson recommended using $4.6 million from the town’s reserve funds and $750,000 in Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority revenue to close the gap and fund operating expenses.

“The effort is in economic development and it helps to keep taxes lower and utilities under control,” he said. “Most towns have a program of one form or another to encourage businesses to stay in Connecticut and provide employment. We’re very interested in having businesses move to Wallingford, especially where they make that kind of investment.”

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).

Celebrate Wallingford 2011 / Wallingford Fireworks Fund

Celebrate Wallingford 2011 will be taking place Saturday October 1st -- 11AM – 7PM and Sunday October 2nd -- 12PM - 6PM at the Wallingford Railroad Station Green and along Hall Ave.





I know there will be some candidates there campaigning but I will not be one of them. I will be there both days collecting for the Wallingford Fireworks Fund and that will be it.  

There might be the time for both but for me it is more important to get the needed jump start on the 2012 celebration as opposed to adding more juice to my campaign. As I need to, I can meet with people individually and in small groups in their neighborhoods; there are very few opportunities for me to reach this many Wallingford residents all in one shot for the Fireworks Fund. 

Besides, if at this point I would think that the voters are well on their way to forming their opinions about me, how I might serve the town, and what my goals and aspirations for the town are. If I need to reinforce anything or further clarify for them I can always do this on a one to one basis. 

Hope to see you at Celebrate Wallingford - thank you for the support over the past two years and I hope we can count on it again going forward.

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.

A lot is riding on Simpson Court parking

As Published in the Record Journal on Friday September 16, 2011

Jeffrey Kurz
General Assignment Editor
jkurz@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2213

It’s not a good idea to start a story with a quote. It’s some kind of journalism advice that sticks in my mind. But since I’ve said what I just said I can get on with the quote: “We did it once before and we’ll do it again.”

That was offered recently by Robert Gross, an organizer of the petition drive that will result in a Wallingford referendum, now scheduled for Nov. 14, in which voters will consider overturning a Town Council decision. That decision is the council’s vote to spend up to $500,000 in upgrades to a parking lot behind four buildings along Simpson Court in return for 30 years of free public parking.

Those vexed by the decision feel public money should not be spent on private property.

The referendum will take place not on the date of the general election, Nov. 8, but about a week afterward, and that leaves the question of whether people will feel inspired to go to the polls again, for a special issue.

At least 20 percent of registered voters are needed to participate in order for the referendum to count.

Gross told the Record-Journal recently he was confident of a successful turnout.

That’s part of what the “we did it once before...” comment was about. And he has reason for the confidence.

Gross was among the organizers who brought a referendum in 2006. That year, the vexation was over the council’s decision to sell the Wooding-Caplan property to a local developer, Joseph DiNatale, for $409,000. The town had purchased the 3.5acre parcel in 1992 for $1.5 million.

Residents repealed the council’s Wooding- Caplan decision by a wide margin, 6,659 to 413, even though the referendum took place in the middle of summer, when people have every right to have other things on their minds, including vacations.

A referendum in Wallingford, as was noted in 2006, is a rare event. So is overturning a council decision. In a referendum held in 1995 over whether the town should have purchased the 6 Fairfield Blvd. building for a recreation center at $1.4 million, residents voted 2,381 to 1,477 to reverse the council’s decision. But it was no good because turnout was 995 votes shy of the 20 percent needed.

You could argue that voters make their choice when they choose people to represent them on the council (and school board, etc.), but there’s value in a process that allows residents to overturn what enough of them consider a wrong-headed decision, particularly if that process is a tall order. Gross and others, including Town Councilor Nicholas Economopoulos, were able to collect far more than the 2,491 signatures needed to force the Simpson Court referendum, meaning 10 percent of the registered voters in town. One of the unpleasant aspects of the Wooding-Caplan referendum, a very heated issue, was what I consider to have been a cynical strategy employed by some that basically advised people to stay home and not vote, the idea being that the reversal could be defeated simply by not reaching the 20 percent of voter participation required. It probably does not take a journalist, or anyone else committed to defending Constitutional rights, to point out that urging people not to participate in the democratic process is a wrong-headed tactic.

I haven’t heard of anyone suggesting that strategy this time around, which is encouraging.

I don’t have any strong feelings about Simpson Court. I didn’t have any strong feelings about Wooding-Caplan. I also don’t live in Wallingford. If I did, though, I’d make up my mind and make sure I voted. I hope Wallingford residents will do just that.

AGENDA WALLINGFORD TOWN COUNCIL MEETING

TOWN OF WALLINGFORD, CONNECTICUT

REGULAR TOWN COUNCIL MEETING

Town Council Chambers

TUESDAY

SEPTEMBER 27, 2011

6:30 P.M

AGENDA

Opening Prayer – Reverend Dean Warburton, First Congregational Church of Wallingford, Connecticut

1. Pledge of Allegiance and Roll Call

2. Correspondence

3. Executive Session pursuant to §1-299(2), §1-200(6)(B), §1-225(f) of the Connecticut General Statutes with regard to collective bargaining to discuss Defined Contribution Pension Plan – Personnel

4. Executive Session pursuant to §1-225(f) and § 1-200(6)(B) of the Connecticut General Statutes regarding strategy and negotiations with respect to pending Workers’ Compensation Case Lanoue v. Town of Wallingford – Personnel

5. Possible Action on Lanoue v. Town of Wallingford – Personnel

6. Consent Agenda

6a. Consider and Approve Tax Refunds (#187 - #223) totaling $9,912.86 Acct. # 001-1000-010-1170 - Tax Collector

6b. Acceptance of Donation and Appropriation in the Amount of $10 Youth & Social Services Special Fund to Donations Acct #2134002-47010 and to Expenditures Acct # 21340100-58830 – Youth & Social Services

6c. Acceptance of Donation and Appropriation in the Amount of $95 Youth & Social Services Special Fund WECARE to Donations Acct #2134002-47010 and to Expenditures Acct # 21340100-58830 – Youth & Social Services

6d. Acceptance of Donation and Appropriation in the Amount of $170 Youth & Social Services Special Fund to Donations Acct #2134002-47010 and to Expenditures Acct # 21340100-58830 – Youth & Social Services

6e. Acceptance of Donation and Appropriation in the Amount of $230 Youth & Social Services Special Fund to Donations Acct #2134002-47010 and to Expenditures Acct # 21340100-58830 – Youth & Social Services

6f. Acceptance of Donation and Appropriation in the Amount of $100 Youth & Social Services Special Fund to Donations Acct #2134002-47010 and to Expenditures Acct # 21340100-58830 – Youth & Social Services

6g. Acceptance of Donation and Appropriation in the Amount of $719 Youth & Social Services Special Fund Peer Advocates to Donations Acct #2134002-47010 and to Expenditures Acct # 21340100-58830 – Youth & Social Services

6h. Consider and Approve a Transfer in the Amount of $1,464 to Uncollectible Accounts Expense Acct # 904 from Customer Records and Collections Acct # 903 – Electric Division

6i. Consider and Approve a Transfer in the Amount of $135 to Transmission-Load Dispatch Acct # 561 from Distribution-Load Dispatch Acct # 581– Electric Division

6j. Approve minutes of Regular Town Council Meeting of September 13, 2011

6k. Approve minutes of Special Town Council Meeting of September 19, 2011

7. Items Removed from the Consent Agenda

8. PUBLIC QUESTION & ANSWER

9. Consider and Approve Revised Job Description Skilled tradesman (Plumber-Boiler Room Technician) – Board of Education

10. Consider and Approve an Appropriation of $55,000 to Outside Services Acct # 923 from Retained Earnings – Electric Division

11. Consider and Approve Resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into an Agreement between the Town of Wallingford and the State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation, for the purchase of Alternative/Clean Fuel Vehicle(s) and to execute any amendments, rescissions and revisions thereto – Grants Administrator duly

12. Consider and Approve a Transfer in the Amount of $45,299 to Town Hall Building -West Wall Repair Acct # 30102011-57000-20022 from Whirlwind Hill Road-Phase II Acct # 30102011-57000-20013 – Public Works

13. Discussion and Action regarding Amending the Recycling Regulations of the Town of Wallingford – Public Works

14. Discussion and Action Authorizing the Mayor to execute a Tax Assessment Agreement between the Town of Wallingford and Workstage Connecticut, LLC for a Seven (7) year period pursuant to the Town’s Real Property Tax Incentive Program – Economic Development Commission

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

16. Executive Session pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §1-225(f) and §1-200(6)(B) to discuss the following cases:

Thurston Associates v. Town of Wallingford

North Colony Road LLC v. Town of Wallingford

Town of Wallingford v. Morin

-Town Attorney

17. Possible Action on Thurston Associates v. Town of Wallingford - Town Attorney

18. Possible Action on North Colony Road LLC v. Town of Wallingford - Town Attorney

19. Possible Action on Town of Wallingford v. Morin - Town Attorney

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.”