More explanation on Wallingford taxes: myth and reality – as offered by one Republican in a Facebook discussion

This is an independent conversation from my prior blog post Wallingford Taxes – MYTH and REALITY (which is what generated Steve Knight’s article in the Record Journal) but as far as I am concerned it only further proves my point

 

Town explores tougher zoning rules

I am interested in what people's thoughts are on this subject - let's discuss. Is the town going too far to suggest limiting what someone can hang for a sign INSIDE their business space (e.g. inside the windows)?

Town explores tougher zoning rules is the Record Journal article.

The discussion is ongoing at the Jason Zandri for Mayor of Wallingford group over on Facebook (if you have an account there). Otherwise feel free to post your thoughts to me here or privately via email. 

Wooding Caplan Lot work needs OK from PZC (permit for the work was never approved)

Special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission Monday to be held in Town Hall at 7PM; the commission will discuss the Incentive Housing Zone as well as the work going on with respect to the Wooding Caplan Lot work as a needed permit for the work was apparently never pulled.

Here is the story as published in the Record Journal regarding the same.

Standing still – Letter to the editor of the Record Journal Sunday August 4, 2013

This letter was written by Vincent Avallone of Wallingford and published in the Record Journal on Sunday August 4, 2013 in the Readers’ Opinions section of the paper.

 

Editor: In response to Jim Seichter’s letter (R-J, 7-26), I’m sure Lt. Governor Nancy Wyman would have enjoyed meeting with the mayor if she had only been invited.

It amazes me how the thinking of the local Republican Party is so in sync with the state and national Party in that they’re great at pointing out problems, with no solutions of course, but fail to acknowledge those most responsible for causing the problems in the first place.

Do the names John Rowland, Jodi Rell and George Bush ring a bell? When Mr. Dickinson became mayor in the 80’s, he wasn’t burdened with a financial and economic crisis, electric rates were already low, much lower than they are today, and the bond rating was just fine.

Not quite the same scenario when Governor Malloy and Lt. Governor Wyman took office. It’s unfortunate that Seichter didn’t attend Jason Zandri’s fundraiser and listen to the Democratic Party’s endorsed mayoral candidate’s address to the crowd. He was excited, energetic and full of ideas you’ll learn about as the campaign progresses and he delivered a message of moving Wallingford forward and making it a better place to live, unlike the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” philosophy of the mayor.

The Republicans feel that Wallingford is an oasis and they’ll continue “doing things how they always have been done.” The mayor is so complacent that instead of addressing issues that face the town, he decided to sing a song when he was recently endorsed by his Party. Jason Zandri understands that if Wallingford isn’t moving forward, it’s moving backwards as other towns streak by us utilizing modern methods of achieving greater efficiency at a reduced cost. There’s much work to be done, as Seichter states, but it won’t get done standing still.

Vincent Avallone, Wallingford

WALLINGFORD PROPERTY TAX DEFERRAL FOR THE ELDERLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED – WHY IT DOESN’T GO FAR ENOUGH

There is really little need for me to include much additional narrative into the facts below (but I do offer some); Wallingford needs to review our current offering and then consider some changes in this program to make it a better benefit for Wallingford’s elderly and disabled.

There is no reason we cannot do more. I am good with anyone that wants to move to another state to be closer to family or to spend more time in warmer weather, but to have someone say “I have to move away from family and the town that I grew up in or have called home since [DATE] because I can no longer afford the taxes in Wallingford and Connecticut” is unfathomable.

We all know that the impact is dual (local and state); we need to address what we can locally and then lobby the state on behalf of our citizens as much as we can.

Here is the data for Wallingford:

Wallingford’s median household income in 2009: $71,117 (it was $57,308 in 2000)

Wallingford’s per capita income in 2009: $32,679 (this means “each individual person”)

Estimated median house or condo value in 2009: $295,349 (it was $157,700 in 2000)

Wallingford’s property tax deferral income guidelines for 2010 – Married $49,500 – Single $42,300; in order to reach Wallingford’s household income, this benefit would need to increase 43.5% as it otherwise falls short.

 

Here is the data for Guilford:

Guilford’s median household income in 2009: $95,359 (it was $76,843 in 2000)

Guilford’s per capita income in 2009: $46,803 (this means “each individual person”)

Estimated median house or condo value in 2009: $431,692 (it was $230,500 in 2000)

Guilford’s property tax deferral income guidelines (based on total years of residency) 20+ years – Married $95,000 – Single $79,000; “married” matches their town’s median household income.

 

Here is the data for Durham:

Durham’s median household income in 2009: $93,287 (it was $57,308 in 2000)

Durham’s per capita income in 2009: $40,442 (this means “each individual person”)

Estimated median house or condo value in 2009: $316,714 (it was $157,700 in 2000)

Durham’s property tax deferral income guidelines for 2010 (based on total years of residency) 20+years “Income not to exceed 2.0 times the maximum income levels set annually for single or married status, as applicable, by the Office of Policy and Management for State elderly/disabled tax relief programs” – those numbers (doubled, as outlined for the 2011 program year) are Married $79,000 – Single $64,600. While it does not reach their town’s median household income, it does better than Wallingford.

 

We can do better than this Wallingford for our seniors who have lived here a lot longer than “just” 20 years.

The most impactful voters are the ones that show up.

Different ages of people ask me why it seems (to them) that “the government” (and this could be federal, state or local depending on the conversation at the time) always seems to favor [THAT AGE GROUP] over theirs and the [GROUP] always seems to be an older age group.

The bottom line is – the squeaky wheels get the grease.

When you look at total number of registered voters, the older the bracket, the more they tend to be registered. At the same time too, when you look at the percentages of who turns out from those brackets, the older brackets turn out with a larger percentage as well.

The following is the information lifted from the last municipal election (2011) of a total of about 25,000 registered voters:

18-24 year olds – total registered 1,869 and of that 193 (10.5%) showed up to vote. You expect this bracket to be less in total number of voters as it contains only seven years of voters and all the others are ten but the 10.5 percentage across just those registered is very low.

25-34 year olds – total registered 3,051 and of that 456 (14.9%) showed up to vote. Nearly 50% more percentage wise on the turnout, nearly twice as many total registered and more than double the number in turnout which is all better than their counterparts in the 18 to 24 bracket but still low overall as you compare the older demographics.

35-44 year olds – total registered 3,433 and of that 913 (26.6%) showed up to vote. With nearly 3,500 registered voters, this block comes in with less than 1,000 total voters showing up to vote locally. When you consider this group (along with a portion of the prior demographic and the next) to be the main segment of the population that uses the largest portion of the municipal budget (education budget for those with children) you would hope to see higher turnout numbers.

45-54 year olds – total registered 5,167 and of that 1,995 (38.6%) showed up to vote. This group is the second largest in total number on the registration side but at just 38.6% in turnout (while better than their younger counterparts) they impact about the same as the 65 to 74 demographic but less so than the 55 to 64 group. With its sheer numbers matching, they could have more presence if they could move their turnout numbers higher.

55-64 year olds – total registered 5,211 and of that 2,350 (45.1%) showed up to vote. This group is the largest in total number on both the registration side and the turnout number. On the percentage side at 45.1% they turnout at the third highest percentage as well but because of their total numbers of registered, this group’s turnout numbers have the highest impact regarding total vote tally.

65-74 year olds – total registered 3,329 and of that 1,876 (56.3%) showed up to vote. This group is the third largest group with 3,329 registered. Their turnout percentages are very good locally at 56.3% which generated 1,876 voters at the polls. They are the second highest impacting group because of this.

75-84 year olds – total registered 1,958 and of that 1,146 (58.5%) showed up to vote. As people age onward and pass away it impacts the demographic. This group has the highest percentage of local voter turnout at 58.5% but as their total numbers dwindle their voter impact lessens. Despite the handicap, they are still a very impactful group.

85 and older – total registered 1,292 and of that 547 (42.3%) showed up to vote. At just a hair shy of 1,300 registered voters and 547 turning out, this group nearly singlehandedly outstrips the impact of the 5,000 registered voters in both the 18 to 24 and the 25 to 34 demographics combined as in both those groups only 649 people voted locally.  

It’s your town – get informed, get involved and VOTE

Wallingford Taxes – MYTH and REALITY

From the “Contrast in candidates and campaigns: Dickinson-Zandri” article as published in the Record Journal on Sunday July 28, 2013.

“I think if you compare Wallingford with the surrounding area, we’re comparable,” Dickinson said. “We provide a full range of services. I don’t believe taxes have gone up beyond what they’ve gone up in many surrounding communities.”

There’s your first myth “I don’t believe taxes have gone up beyond what they’ve gone up in many surrounding communities”.

Below is your reality.

These are all comparable homes - Bedrooms: 3/4 beds / Bathrooms: 2 baths / Single Family: ABOUT 1,350 SQ FT / Lot: ABOUT 25,000 SQ FT

 

There’s actually a second myth here - “We provide a full range of services”. North Haven’s comparable home that pays about $40.00 more a year in taxes; they have regular curbside trash removal all included in the cost of their taxes and this includes a couple of bulky pick ups during the year. Wallingford residents pay for that out of their pocket.

They also have full day Kindergarten.

Both of those added cost burdens are managed by North Haven at the cost of an additional $40.00 in taxes against this cross section of homes.

For Wallingford to offer those two additional services taxes would need to go up approximately an additional 10%.

 

For a better cross comparison of the Wallingford average let’s take homes of all shapes and sizes – the present addresses of the Town Councilors and the Mayor and the taxes as taken from the Wallingford Tax office:

 

You do not have to take my word for it – call the tax office yourself and get your own taxes from the prior revaluation (pre 2005) and then compare them with your current taxes.

Knowledge – it’s a wonderful thing.

Dickinson-Zandri: contrast in candidates, campaigns

The “Contrast in candidates and campaigns: Dickinson-Zandri article” appeared on Sunday July 28, 2013.

The jump pages split the article – this link will take you to the story as it appeared on Page One.

This second link will take you to the story as it appeared on Page Four.

This is a very well written and rounded article by the Record Journal’s Andrew Ragali and Jeff Gebeau - it is a must read.

It’s your town – get informed and get involved. – VOTE Tuesday November 5, 2013.

The Comerford Video – Follow up from the RJ story “Wallingford town official advised against showing video of environmental spill”

In a prior post I directed readers to the story regarding “Wallingford town official advised against showing video of environmental spill” via the Record Journal website. I also included the original O’Hare memo so you could see it for yourself.

Below is the four and a half minute video shot by resident William Comerford for your review.

O’Hare memo to wetlands commission Chairman James Vitali

You can read the story regarding “Wallingford town official advised against showing video of environmental spill” via the Record Journal post online. If you cannot access the article please let me know.

Beyond that, this link will allow you to read the O’Hare memo for yourself so that you can draw your own conclusions but the article written by Andrew Ragali of the Record Journal really says it all.

At the end of the day, if there really was “nothing to see” and we should all just “move along” then why NOT show the video? Show it, offer the same explanations as offered in the memo and then go about other business.

The reasons why are simple – there is more to scrutinize.

As quoted from the article “The town was asked by DEEP to stop storing catch basin materials at the facility in 2009, but the practice continued, according to DEEP. The town is required to file a compliance letter with DEEP in response to the June notice of violation”.

There is still more to these stories; stay tuned.

OSHA cites six violations on Wallingford work site

As published via MyRecordJournal.com Wednesday, July 17, 2013 8:13 pm

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

WALLINGFORD - The state Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited the town’s Public Works Department last month for six violations related to work at the town-owned Wooding-Caplan property.

All six were called “serious” by OSHA in the citation sent to the mayor’s office on June 26.

For the full story please see “OSHA cites six violations on Wallingford work site”

To see the 07-17-13 OSHA letter to Mayor Dickinson of June 26, 2013 please follow this link.

Caucuses will fill November ballot

As published in the Record Journal Friday July 12, 2013

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

WALLINGFORD — Candidates for mayor, Town Council and Board of Education will be endorsed at party caucuses Wednesday night.

At 7 p.m., the Democratic Town Committee will meet on the second floor of 350 Center St, said committee Chairman Vinnie Avallone. The Republican Town Committee will meet at the same time at Dag Hammarskjold Middle School on Pond Hill Road, said Chairman Bob Prentice.

Six Democrats, including two incumbents — Nick Economopoulos and John Sullivan — have announced that they are running for the council next term, Avallone said. Jason Zandri will give up his council seat to run for mayor. Other council candidates include former councilor and mayoral candidate Vinnie Testa, as well as Debbie Reynolds, Dana Camp and Larry Russo. Avallone said the four current Democrats on the Board of Education will seek endorsement, as will newcomer Patricia Mills.

Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr., a Republican, has announced he will seek re-election. Prentice said Republicans will end up running seven candidates for Town Council. With the exception of Rosemary Rascati, who has announced she will not seek reelection, all the incumbents will run. In addition, former Councilor Ray Rys and current Board of Education member Christine Mansfield will be seeking council seats, Prentice said. The four Republican Board of Education incumbents, minus Mansfield, will seek re-election, he said, adding that the committee is still looking to add two candidates to the Board of Education ticket.

“It’s not official till the caucus is over,” Prentice said.

On the Republican side, a single ballot is normally cast to endorse the entire slate of candidates during the caucus, Prentice said.

Since only six Democrats are seeking council seats, that can happen, on the Democratic side as well, Avallone said. The alternative would be for a nomination and vote for each candidate, he added.

Candidates must file financial registration with the town clerk’s office by 4 p.m. July 29, said Town Clerk Barbara Thompson. This paperwork includes reports on campaign finances. Candidates must file with the office “even if they’re not going to raise money,” Thompson said. If they don’t file in time, they will be subject to a $100 fine, she said.

As of Thursday, Zandri, Dickinson, Camp and Rys have filed paperwork with the office. Zandri is the only candidate to have raised money for his campaign so far.

Zandri has raised $14,335, with $10,107 still unspent. According to paperwork filed with the town clerk’s office, Zandri has spent his campaign money on office supplies. He also spent $200 on three occasions for the services of What’s Next, a political consulting firm based in Wethersfield. Zandri said the firm is developing walking routes so he can efficiently campaign door-to-door, because “you need to knock on the right door,” he said. Zandri also spent $980 in campaign money for the services of The Vinci Group, a Manchester consulting firm that organizes fundraisers, Zandri said, including the July 24 event at Zandri’s Stillwood Inn on South Colony Road. The event will be hosted by local state Reps. Mary Mushinsky and Mary Fritz. Lt Gov. Nancy Wyman will be a special guest at the event, Zandri said.

“It’s generating a lot of interest at the state level, too,” Avallone said of Zandri’s campaign. “There’s a lot of energy.”

Zandri said he has already begun his door-to-door campaigning. Support so far has been positive, he said, with the only negative being that people are upset he won’t be a town councilor anymore.

Dickinson said he will look to begin fundraising in the coming weeks.

“It’s putting the plans together,” he said. “I can’t do a lot of door-to-door, but I try to do some.”

A lot of the work is behind the scenes putting literature and mailings together.

“That’s what most of the campaign money goes into,” he said, adding that there is a lot of assistance from the Republican Town Committee, as well as non-committee members in town.

Prentice said Dickinson’s run for mayor is “usually a pretty simple campaign.”

“He never takes any credit for anything, he said. “That’s what kills me.”

Both mayoral candidates said they support their parties’ Town Council and Board of Education candidates, and view them as teammates in the race for mayor.

Thompson said Prentice and Avallone must file their certificate of endorsement with her office by July 24. This paperwork officially lists whom each party endorses. Throughout the state, all candidates for election must be endorsed between July 16 and July 23.

No grant for Simpson Court in Wallingford

As published online at MyRecordJournal.com Thursday, July 11, 2013 11:07 pm

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

WALLINGFORD — Gov. Dannel P. Malloy announced Thursday that 14 municipalities across the state were awarded a share of the $5 million Main Street Investment Fund. Wallingford, seeking $500,000 from the fund to renovate the Simpson Court parking lot near the intersection of Center and North Main streets, was left off the list.

“We knew it was a competitive grant,” Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. said after learning the town will not receive the money. “Everyone was not guaranteed money, and I guess quite a few towns did apply. That’s the nature of the process.”

In all, 64 towns submitted projects worth a total of $26 million to the program, but the state only authorized spending $5 million. Not making the cut is “disappointing,” Dickinson said, “but certainly our concerns about the downtown and the needs for improvement here as well as the other facets and locations in town will continue.”

Dimple Desai, community development coordinator for the state’s Office of Policy and Management, said it was “the nature of the application” sent in by Wallingford that prompted the denial. Desai said the application was for maintenance and upkeep of the parking lot. But according to state statute, Desai said, any renovations that are solely the result of a lack of ordinary maintenance can’t be funded by the Main Street Investment Fund.

“It has to be maintained,” Desai said. “This should have been part of ordinary maintenance.”

Desai said a letter penned by three town councilors discrediting the town’s application for the grant had nothing to do with the denial.

“No, those letters were submitted after the application deadline,” Desai said. “Any documentation after the deadline will not be considered.

“To be fair to all, once the deadline was done, that was it,” he said.

Republican Councilor Craig Fishbein joined Democrats Jason Zandri and Nicholas Economopoulos in sending the Nov. 1 letter to the OPM. The town applied for the grant in late September.

“Components of the application do not appear to comply with the grant specifications and should be taken into consideration when reviewing the town’s application,” Fishbein wrote.

After learning why the state denied the town’s application, Zandri said, “That was a lot of the argument we made originally in the letter. ... Craig indicated that.”

Fishbein, in his letter, argued that elements of the Simpson Court project, such as repaving, restriping and new drainage, amount to normal maintenance and should be excluded.

A plan to renovate the parking lot backed by Dickinson, a Republican, and others was defeated in a 2011 referendum. That plan was similar to the one stalled by Thursday’s announcement from the state, but would have been funded through money the municipal Electric Division transfers to the town for capital projects, rather than from a state grant.

In past months, councilors have indicated their concern over the letter sent by Zandri, Fishbein and Economopoulos. In early June, Democrat John Sullivan said, regarding the letter, “I can’t help but feel it’s damaging” to the town’s chances of receiving grant money for the project. In January, Republican Councilor John LeTourneau, a supporter of the grant application, said the councilors are entitled to their opinions but felt the letter was misleading. Councilors found out about the letter in late January. Fishbein said he never intended for the letter, written in October, to be kept private and believed fellow councilors were aware of it when it was sent. But most councilors said they weren’t aware of the letter until the end of January.

“You have to assume it’s not helpful if there’s controversy over a project,” Dickinson said Thursday.

“I stand by my decision to sign that letter,” said Zandri, who is opposing Dickinson in the upcoming mayoral race.

“I had a good feeling about it, but I had no special reason to feel that way,” Town Council Chairman Bob Parisi, a Republican, said of the town’s chances of getting the grant. “The project was needed, well thought-out and well planned. I couldn’t see any reason why we wouldn’t be selected.”

In regard to what happens with the parking lot next, Parisi said, “I think we need to have a chat with the mayor.”

“I’m very disappointed,” LeTourneau said. “If it’s something we should be maintaining, they’re telling us we didn’t maintain it properly. That’s really not good, to lose a grant because we didn’t do what we were supposed to be doing.”

“It’s unfortunate,” Fishbein said, “but certainly I wouldn’t be pointing at the letter. I think the people have spoken through referendum.”

The future of the property may now come down to litigation, in LeTourneau’s opinion.

“It’s not going to go down a good road,” he said. “It’s all going to end up in litigation. That’s the long and short of it.”

“Could it end up in litigation?” Zandri asked. “Absolutely.”

Through a contractual agreement with business owners, upkeep of the lot was the town’s responsibility, Zandri said. “And it’s questionable if that work was done.”

“I don’t know,” said Dickinson when asked if litigation was possible. “Clearly the private property owners there have options that they can pursue.”

From here on out, Dickinson said, the town will have to wait and see what the next step is for the parking lot.

“If everybody can’t sit down and can’t negotiate some peaceful means of repairing the parking lot,” LeTourneau said, “well, then a judge is going to decide.”

Excerpts from DEEP notices / PDF of letter of violation

Via this link you can review the entire “Notice of Violation for solid waste violations in the Town of Wallingford.”

Below are the “Excerpts from DEEP notices” as published in the Record Journal on Sunday July 7, 2013

WALLINGFORD — The town has been cited for nine violations of environmental laws and regulations for its handling of waste at two town-owned properties — 91 N. Turnpike Road and 157 John St. The following are excerpts from the DEEP’s June 13 Notice of Violation addressed to Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr.:

The purpose of this Notice is to inform you that personnel of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (“DEEP”) have made observations or otherwise obtained information indicating that a violation of law has occurred at property located at 91 North Turnpike Road and 157 John Street in Wallingford, Connecticut. On May 15, 2013, an inspection was conducted by DEEP, Bureau of Materials Management and Compliance Assurance... Based upon that inspection, it appears that the town has:

1. Built, established, altered and/or operated a solid waste facility where more than ten cubic yards of solid waste including, but not limited to catch basin cleanings and oily wastewater, were disposed of after July 1, 1971, without a plan, design and method of operation of such solid waste facility having been filed with the Department and approved by the Commissioner by the issuance of a permit to construct and operate a solid waste facility...

2. Violated the Approval of Registration under the General Permit to Construct and Operate Certain Recycling Facilities to Operate a Drop-Site Recycling Facility Permit Registration ... at 157 John Street in Wallingford.

3. Violated the Drop-Site Recycling Facility Permit Registration ... at 157 John Street ... for failure to provide a berm so as to prevent run-on and failure to provide a spill containment system capable of containing 100% by volume of the contents of the 275 gallon existing used oil tank.

4. Violated the Drop-Site Recycling Facility Permit Registration ... at 157 John Street ... for failure to ensure that no person other than an employee of the facility, or person under the supervision of such an employee, may pour used oil into a collection container or tank at the facility.

5. Violated the Drop-Site Recycling Facility Permit Registration at 157 John Street ... for failure to provide an adequate temporary storage area for residents to drop off containers of used oil. This temporary storage area shall be adjacent to the used oil tank and shall, at a minimum, have a sufficiently impervious surface, have three walls and a roof, and provide for secondary containment.

6. Violated the Drop-Site Recycling Facility Permit Registration at 157 John Street ... for failure to store no more than sixty (60) scrap metal appliances containing CFCs on-site. Specifically, approximately seventy (70) individual units were observed on-site at the time of the inspection.

7. Failed to manage used oil as required by Section 22a-449(c)119(a)(2)(N) and (O) of the RCSA,incorporating Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“40 CFR”) 279.22(d), with specified changes.

8. Failed to ensure that used oil generated by the Town of Wallingford was transported only by transporters who had obtained EPA identification numbers as required...

9. Failed to have a permit to operate a used oil collection center as required... Specifically, there are certain regulatory requirements that must be met prior to aggregating the used oil from the used oil storage area’s secondary containment to an aggregation point.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Under the Department’s “Guideline for Municipal Management Practices for Street Sweepings and Catch Basin Cleaning” ..., street sweepings are allowed to be stored at a designated temporary storage location for less than one year. The Town of Wallingford stated that the existing street sweepings stockpile at 91 North Turnpike Road accumulated over three years. The Town of Wallingford is required to either reuse in accordance with the Department’s guideline or send off-site for disposal at a permitted facility all street sweepings from this site. The Town of Wallingford is advised that the violations cited above can reasonably be expected to create a source of pollution to the waters of the State, by a release of used oil and other solid waste to the ground. Such a condition would be in Violation of CGS Section 22a-427, and would require action by the Town to remedy this condition.

 

Town challenges DEEP notice on recycling issues

As published in the Record Journal Wednesday July 10, 2013

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

WALLINGFORD — The town is either asking for clarification or disagreeing with seven of nine violations cited by the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. The violations, subject of a notice issued June 13, pertain to operations at the municipal recycling center on John Street and a Public Works dumping and storage facility on North Turnpike Road.

Public Works Director Henry McCully wrote June 28 to Laurene Buckowski, a DEEP sanitary engineer, questioning many of the violations cited. While McCully wrote that the town has fully complied with DEEP standards at 91 N. Turnpike Road, he questions or asks for clarifications on seven of the eight violations cited regarding the town’s recycling center.

“In addition to working with you to resolve these issues,” McCully wrote, “it may be advisable to review certain requirements with our contractor at the recycling center.”
Fabio Enterprises, of Wallingford, is under contract with the town to operate the recycling center.

The nine violations cited were the result of a May 15 DEEP inspection of both facilities. The state found the town violated state environmental laws and regulations by improperly disposing of residential waste oil at the 157 John St. facility, while Public Works was cited for illegal dumping on the 91 N. Turnpike Road property.

A letter of compliance must be submitted within 30 days of a notice of violation, according to the DEEP. If the town does not comply, civil penalties of up to $25,000 may be assessed for each day the town is knowingly in violation of DEEP standards.

According to the timeframe of the initial notice of violation, the town must officially respond with a compliance letter by Friday. On Tuesday, Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. said, “I believe that we will be able to respond within that timeframe.”

In his letter, McCully said he was concerned about the timeframe. He said that the mayor did not receive the initial notice in full until June 21, eight days after it was issued. Mc-Cully wrote that “if it becomes necessary, we may need additional time.” Dickinson said he is overseeing the situation with DEEP, but at this point the law department and McCully are the main parties involved.

Corporation Counsel Janis Small said Tuesday that she asked McCully to respond to DEEP with some questions, but that his letter was not the town’s final compliance letter.

“We did have a few questions,” she said. “We want to make sure we’re all on the same page.”

McCully’s letter says the town has made the necessary changes at 91 N. Turnpike Road. DEEP had said the town did not have proper permits to store catch-basin cleanings and oily wastewater in the area.

McCully said that from now on, street sweeping waste will be stored in the public works salt shed before being taken to a landfill in Manchester. The oily release at the site, which prompted the DEEP investigation, is being removed, he said, and future catch-basin cleanings at the department’s truck wash station will be done by a contractor. Catch-basin cleaning has been temporarily suspended, he added.

Notice of another violation, related to oil disposal at the recycling center, was issued because the town does not have a “used oil” sign on storage tanks. McCully responded that the tanks are labeled with the words “waste oil,” as well as another sign that reads “used crankcase oil only, do not contaminate this waste oil.”

“It is our belief that the terms ‘waste oil’ and ‘used oil’ have historically been used interchangeably,” McCully said. He asked for further comment.

In another violation involving oil disposal, DEEP said the facility failed to provide an adequate containment area for the 275-gallon used-oil tank.

“The town does not believe there is a violation,” McCully said.

“The secondary containment berm has a capacity of 320 gallons while the tank has a capacity of 275 gallons.”
DEEP said the town failed to ensure that no person other than an employee of the facility, or someone under the supervision of an employee, pours oil into the used-oil tank.

McCully responded that the town contracts with Fabio Enterprises, and that according to bid documents, the contractor is responsible for the collection of waste oil.

McCully said Fabio Enterprises has indicated that residents disposing of oil are supervised.

McCully asked for additional information about what is required.

Responding to a violation cited because a temporary storage area for waste-oil containers isn’t available, McCully said that because the waste-oil tank is supervised, “a temporary storage area for the collection of containers of used oil is not required.”

“Is this correct?” he asked.

A DEEP inspector visiting the recycling center noted about 70 scrap metal appliances, and only 60 are allowed. McCully said the town’s agreement with Fabio Enterprises makes the state’s regulations clear, and the contractor has been notified of the violation.

While Fabio Enterprises runs the facility, “the town is ultimately responsible,” said Robert Isner, program manager of DEEP’s waste management program. “The town is the permit holder with the department,” he said.

McCully said the town did not understand another cited violation regarding managing used oil, and requested clarification. The town was cited for failing to ensure used oil is transported by those with proper credentials. It’s unclear if violation makes sense, McCully said, because his department reuses the waste oil. DEEP also said the town lacks the proper permits for the waste oil site, but McCully said he believes the town’s permit includes the facility.

McCully said he would meet with Buckowski this week for further discussion and clarification.

“We are analyzing the response to the notice of violation provided by the town of Wallingford,” DEEP spokesman Dennis Schain said Tuesday. “We plan on discussing with them issues they raised in their letter and also following up with another inspection of the facility. Our goal is to achieve compliance with conditions of the town’s permit and sound environmental practices and we will continue working with the town to achieve that.”

Town mulls DEEP reply

As published in the Record Journal Sunday July 7, 2013

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

WALLINGFORD — The town has drafted a response to nine environmental violations issued by the state for a municipal recycling center on John Street and a Public Works dumping and storage facility on North Turnpike Road, according to Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr.

Dickinson said the town plans to respond to the June 13 notice of violation from the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection by the end of the week to comply with the department’s orders. The town violated state environmental laws and regulations by improperly disposing of residential waste oil at the 157 John St. facility, while Public Works was cited for illegal dumping on the 91 N. Turnpike Road property.

According to the DEEP, a letter of compliance must be submitted no later than 30 days from when the notice of violation was issued. On Friday, Dickinson said he did not believe the compliance letter had been sent to DEEP yet.

“The communication from DEEP is still being reviewed,” Dickinson said.

Civil penalties of up to $25,000 may be assessed for each day the town was knowingly in violation of DEEP standards, although the town’s response “may affect DEEP’s decision whether or not to pursue a formal enforcement action,” according to the notice of violation.

The notice advises the town that the local violations “can reasonably be expected to create a source of pollution to the waters of the state, by a release of used oil and other solid waste to the ground.”

Asked if the town will contest any of the violations, Dickinson said “at this point, it’s being reviewed.”

“A determination will be made,” he said Friday. “Nothing has been totally decided as of yet.

“We’re looking to comply with most of it as far as I know.”

Eight of the violations stem from the town’s recycling center and how used oil was recycled at the facility. The town contracts with Fabio Enterprises of Old Colony Road to run the recycling center. Violations vary, from the lack of a “used oil” sign, to the failure to provide a spill containment area, or failing to ensure no person other than an employee of the facility, or a person under direct supervision of an employee, pours used oil into the collection tank.

On May 15, Laurene Buckowski, a sanitary engineer at DEEP, visited the town to investigate any possible violations. She was escorted by Public Works Foreman Stephen Palermo. According to an interoffice memo between Buckowski and DEEP Supervising Environmental Analyst Frank Gagliardo, Buckowski said there was about 10 gallons of an oily black liquid in the oil recycling containment area. Buckowski states in the memo that Palermo said the area would be closed, cleaned out and renovated due to violations.

Dickinson reported during the June 11 Town Council meeting that, due to improper disposal practices, oil recycling would no longer be available to residents. At the time, Dickinson said residents were disposing of liquids other than oil, such as antifreeze, and that the service would be discontinued because an employee of the facility could not constantly oversee it. He did not mention the environmental violations.

“It makes me wonder why the mayor would say the reason we shut it down is because of the wrong liquids,” said Democratic Town Councilor Jason Zandri, who is opposing Dickinson, a Republican, in the upcoming mayoral election.

If Dickinson wasn’t being forthcoming during the June Town Council, “I would not be very happy, as a councilor or a resident,” said Democratic Town Councilor John Sullivan.“That is extremely serious to me. I’d be disappointed in Mayor Dickinson if he did that.”

Republican Town Councilor John LeTourneau said the issues at 91 N. Turnpike Road, known as the “dog pit,” need to be kept separate from the issues at the recycling center. LeTourneau said he was surprised the department only handed out nine violations in total because of past experiences with the department and how “they have to go by the books.”

DEEP officials familiar with the violations in Wallingford were not available for comment, a spokesperson said.

Concerns about practices at 91 N. Turnpike Road date back 20 years. In 1993, Town Environmental Planner Brent Smith issued a cease and desist order to Public Works Director Henry McCully, asking him to stop all expansion activities at the site. According to a letter from Smith to McCully on May 12, 1993, the order was issued because in March of that year McCully came before the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission and said expansion at the site would stop. Between March and May of that year, Smith wrote that commissioners observed further activity at the site.

“If private citizens are obligated to abide by state and municipal environmental legislation, should the town itself be any different?” Smith wrote.

In 2008, the Department of Environmental Protection investigated the site after receiving a complaint that catch basin clean out waste was being dumped there, according to a March 3, 2009 department memo. The memo states that McCully was made aware of the issues, and that he would address the problem with the local wetlands commission. The DEP found McCully’s response adequate and closed the investigation.

The current violations at 91 North Turnpike Road stem from a complaint by local resident William Comerford, who noticed large pools of oily liquid at the site on April 8 and reported it to Environmental Planner Erin O’Hare. Comerford took video of what he found. On April 10, Comerford contacted the DEEP. Donnell Thigpen, of the department’s emergency response unit, visited the site that day and filed an “emergency incident field report.” He said an investigation of the area revealed “soil in the storage area that had a petroleum odor, it appeared that the pile was not covered immediately, causing the liquids to migrate around the area.”

O’Hare and McCully then arrived on scene, Thigpen said, adding that McCully had hay bales put around the release to prevent any spread. McCully could not be reached for comment.

On Friday, O’Hare said her jurisdiction, as well the jurisdiction of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission, is 50 feet outside of wetlands. The release, as O’Hare characterized the dumped material, came within 47 feet of her jurisdiction. “It’s very serious,” she said. O’Hare said she is investigating the incident on her own, and will share a report during the July 24 wetlands commission meeting. At this point, “I don’t see any contamination to the wetlands,” she said.

According to the DEEP’s notice, a violation was handed out in regard to dumping at the “dog pit” because more than 10 cubic yards of oily waste or catch basin material were stored at the site without proper permits.

O’Hare said she would approach her investigation with due diligence.

“I would get to the bottom of it no matter what department is involved,” she said.

Democratic Town Councilor Nick Economopoulos said Friday that a fair investigation isn’t possible within the town.

People in town positions shouldn’t be investigating people in town positions, he said. “The town should not self-investigate.”

LeTourneau said he expects O’Hare to be honest, and hopes her investigation doesn’t just scratch the surface, “because you have people’s reputations at stake.”

The Planning and Zoning Department was also briefly involved with the situation at 91 N. Turnpike Road because the area is in a protected aquifer zone, and the department oversees aquifers. The town was ordered by DEEP to cease dumping at the site, so the department is no longer involved, according to Town Planner Kacie Costello. Materials must now be shipped to the proper facility by an outside contractor.

From now on, “you really shouldn’t be dumping anything there,” Zandri said. “There has to be a better location to temporally maintain those materials until carted off.”

Republican Town Councilor Tom Laffin said the facility does not need to be totally abandoned “if you watch it and you’re careful.”

Councilors agreed that if necessary the party responsible for the violation should be punished. But punishment, they said, should depend on whether the violations were malicious or not as determined by the Personnel Department.

Republican Town Councilor Craig Fishbein questioned whether the investigation by O’Hare was necessary.

“Certainly it makes things tricky,” he said of a town employee investigating another town department.

Going forward, O’Hare said she will establish town regulations for what can and cannot be placed at 91 N. Turnpike Road.

Economopoulos said that within the next few months he plans to put the topic of illegal dumping on the Town Council agenda to address the “attitude of disrespect to the taxpayer, to the environment and to authority.”

“If you don’t answer to those things,” he said, “who do you answer to?”

State: Town dumped material without permits

As published in the Record Journal Thursday June 20, 2013

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

WALLINGFORD - The state filed a notice of violations with the town last week over the dumping of waste in April at the Department of Public Works storage area on North Turnpike Road. The area is in an aquifer protection zone, and the waste, which included some oily substances, raised concerns about potential effects on ground water and nearby wetlands.

The notice says that the Emergency Incident Field Report confirms that a town truck transported solid waste that was dumped at 91 North Turnpike Road, a town storage area also known as “the dog pit.” The DEEP said in late April that the material, including the oily substances, tested as nonhazardous, according to state standards.

Department of Energy and Environmental Protection spokesman Dennis Schain said Wallingford Public Works crews were moving materials collected during various cleanup and maintenance activities and stockpiling them at 91 North Turnpike Road, which is a solid waste permitting violation.

“They don’t have proper permits and authority to bring those materials to that address,” Schain said. Dumping activities have since been shut down.

He said DEEP has already discussed the issue with town officials. The town is now required to put the material into containers and send it to a commercial landfill.

Though the material was ruled nonhazardous, Wallingford’s aquifer regulations identify hazardous materials as “any oil or petroleum” as identified by state statute. The level of Extractable Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the material was 1,682 milligrams per kilograms, higher than the reporting level of 50.

State statute requires anyone who unloads oil, petroleum or chemical liquids to report the spill or unloading. Any person who fails to make a report may be fined up to $1,000, and the employer maybe fined up to $5,000. The town has 30 days to respond to DEEP in writing about compliance, Schain said. A civil penalty up to $25,000 is applicable to the violation, however, Schain said that if municipalities work with DEEP, fines normally aren’t imposed.

Wallingford resident William Comerford noticed the material at 91 North Turnpike Road on April 8 and reported it to Environmental Planner Erin O’Hare. Comerford said he took a video of what he found that day.

Comerford brought the video to the attention of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission during its meeting June 5. Commissioner Jim Heilman wanted to see the video, but Chairman Jim Vitale thought the video should go to DEEP and chose not to show it.

“The gentleman had information I felt was important ... he was describing a situation of potentially significant impact to wetlands and the public water supply, possibly an intentional release,” Heilman said.

Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. said the only issue that’s important about the spill is that the material was nonhazardous.

Comerford filed another complaint over 91 North Turnpike Road with O’Hare on May 30, saying that he saw a sheen at the base of the wetlands. O’Hare went to the site that day and again June 4. She saw what DEEP determined to be a naturally-occurring bacteria common in wetlands and landfills.

She saw no obvious evidence of release and saw no dead vegetation, which would have been a clear sign of contamination.

Joseph Mrowzowski of the Water Division also went to the site, and O’Hare said he determined that there was no contamination in the wetlands and no need to test the water levels. Water Division General Manager Roger Dann confirmed that.

Wallingford residents with polluted wells may get town water soon

As published in the Record Journal Tuesday June 18, 2013

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

WALLINGFORD - The State Bond Commission is expected to approve a $225,000 grant for the town on Friday, said state Rep. Mary Fritz. The money will pay for extending public water to five houses in a South Broad Street neighborhood.

The Department of Energy and Environmental Protection tested residents’ wells between 1171 and 1179 S. Broad St. in December 2011 and found dangerous levels of trichloroethylene in five of them. Commonly used as an industrial solvent, the chemical can damage the central nervous system when inhaled. The agency installed filters on the wells to clean the water of contaminants, and residents have been working to get access to the town water supply.

“I knew how serious it was,” Fritz, D-Wallingford, said of the contamination issue.

For the past few months, Fritz said, she has stayed in contact with residents in the area, assuring them that she would try her best to secure funding. Harold Lincoln, of 1175 S. Broad St., and Nicholas Sherwood, of 1179 S. Broad St.,have been the most outspoken of the residents with contaminated wells. Both have said they would like the source of the contamination to be investigated. But DEEP officials have said there are too many potential sources to warrant further investigation.

“This whole area was once all silver businesses, and that’s what you have,” Fritz said of water and soil contamination in the neighborhood.

Lincoln and Sherwood, who could not be reached for comment on Monday, have said they’d like a connection to the public water supply. But “getting town water will only solve part of the issues at hand,” Sherwood said via email in early May. “I still won’t know if our soil is polluted. And our home values are still going to suffer from all of these issues, whether they are fixed or not.”

It was Sherwood’s explanation of his family’s situation, expressed through emails, that Fritz said kept her committed to helping residents in the neighborhood.

Fritz said she invited several town officials to the Bond Commission meeting, to be held Friday at 10:30 a.m. in Room 1E of the Legislative Office Building in Hartford. Fritz said that once an item is put on the commission’s agenda, there is little doubt it will be approved. Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. could not be reached for comment on Monday.

But Roger Dann, general manager of the town’s Water Division, said Monday, “This is not a done deal by any stretch.”

Of the $225,000, Dann said,“We would need to see what strings, if any, come attached to that” before proceeding with construction plans.

The closest water main is in the condominium complex behind the houses, Dann said.

Fritz said the grant amount comes from an estimate put together by the town and is intended to cover the total cost of construction. The entire project can be performed by the DEEP, Fritz said, adding that she is working to make sure a crew will come to Wallingford once the funding is approved on Friday.

“I think they should be happy,” Town Councilor Craig Fishbein said of the residents who may now be hooked into town water if the grant money is approved.

“I guess it’s not surprising what priorities government chooses to use our tax dollars for,” Fishbein said.

“I am so thrilled,” Town Councilor Nick Economopoulos said when informed of the potential funding on Monday. Economopoulos and Town Councilor Jason Zandri have both advocated for families in the South Broad Street neighborhood.

“Obviously I’m thrilled that (Fritz) has been able to get those funds for the families,” Zandri said. “I think it’s the right thing to do.”

“I think (Fritz) did an outstanding job,” said Town Councilor John Sullivan. “She stuck with it even though sometimes residents displayed concern.”

“It’s always hard getting money, especially in these times,” said Fritz.

MISSING BOY FROM 2002 FOUND

I received this very good news today as a part of the follow up from my original post "Special Request regarding child exploitation / missing child investigation" and I wanted to share it with everyone

Good Afternoon,

We wanted to update everyone that assisted us during the course of our search for a missing boy from 2002. We are very happy to say that we found the boy yesterday! We very much appreciate all the help that you provided, although we cannot offer any details of the boys identity we can tell you that the boy is fine.

This does highlight the importance of the work that was done and for your contributions we are most thankful.

Thank you again, your assistance was very helpful and we value our relationship with you.

 

Special Agent in Charge
Department of Homeland Security
Homeland Security Investigations
10 Causeway St, Suite 722
Boston, MA

COMPTROLLER LEMBO REPORTS $164.8-MILLION SURPLUS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

Comptroller Kevin Lembo today announced that the state’s financial outlook has improved and the Fiscal Year 2013 will likely end with a surplus of approximately $164.8 million, based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

The surplus would reach approximately $212.3 million on a modified cash basis accounting.

 

In a letter to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, Lembo said this projection shows a slower overall rate of General-Fund spending growth of about 2 percent over last fiscal year. General Fund revenues for Fiscal Year 2013 are estimated to increase at a 3.6 percent rate over last year.

 

Lembo cautioned that the surplus is good news for the current fiscal year, but is largely attributed to unreliable revenue sources that the state may be unable to count on in the following years.

 

The surplus results from an improved revenue outlook and spending restraint,” Lembo said. “Deficit mitigation efforts, constraints on payroll growth, and fringe benefit budget reductions have contributed to the slower overall rate of spending growth.

 

“Double-digit growth in the estimated and final payment components of the income tax associated with strong capital markets and tax changes, as well as windfalls in the inheritance and estate tax, are driving the gains in receipts.”

 

As Lembo cautioned last month, “These revenue gains are welcome, but have the potential to be one-time windfalls. The slow rate of the economic recovery continues to present budget challenges.”

 

Economic data from federal and state Departments of Labor and other sources show:

• The state added 6,300 payroll jobs in April. Over the 12-month period ending in April, the state has had six months of job gains and six months of job losses. The net result over that period has been a gain of 10,800 jobs.

• According to the Department of Labor, Connecticut has recovered 57,500 positions or 47.4 percent of the 121,200 seasonally adjusted total nonfarm jobs that were lost in the state in the March 2008-February 2010 recession. The jobs recovery is now 38 months underway. A recession in the 1990s resulted in a state job loss of almost 160,000 payroll positions. It took 84 months to recover the jobs lost to that recession.
• The strongest job sectors on a year-to-year basis have been leisure and hospitality (+5,900), education and health services (+5,700) and construction (+4,000). The sectors experiencing the largest job losses are manufacturing (-2,500), government (-1,400), and financial activities (-2,200).
• Connecticut’s unemployment rate in April remained fixed at 8.0 percent; the national rate was 7.5 percent that month. Average weekly claims for unemployment rose in April, but remain well below the 2009 peak level.

• In 2012, Connecticut personal income advanced 2 percent, ranking the state 49^th nationally in income growth.
• The strongest growth in the New England region was in Vermont with growth of 3.4 percent. Nationally, income grew at a 3.5-percent rate in 2012. Quarterly personal income in Connecticut performed better in the first half of 2012 than the second half (the income figures for the 1^st quarter of 2013 will be available in June).
• According to the Department of Labor, average hourly earnings at $28.15, not seasonally adjusted, were down thirty-five cents, or -1.2 percent from the April 2012 hourly pay estimate. The resulting average private sector weekly pay was estimated at $943.03, down $34.52, or -3.5 percent over the year.
• The slow rate of job and income growth has had a significant impact on the payroll withholding component of the income tax.
• The Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all urban consumers was advancing at a 1.1-percent rate in April.
• Housing permits in Connecticut have continued to post strong gains coming into 2013. For the 12-month period ending in April, housing permits were close to 60 percent from the same period last year. This is almost double the national growth for the period.
• According to the Census Bureau, U.S. new home sales increased 29 percent from last March. Sales in the Northeast were up 3.4 percent from April of last year. Nationally sales in April were above March levels; in the Northeast sales declined in April.
• Results for the larger existing home sales market, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR), were: Nationally, April sales were up 0.6 percent from the previous month, and sales were up 9.7 percent from April of last year. Home prices were up a solid 11 percent from one year ago. Prices have increased for 14 consecutive months for the first time since the 2005-2006 market acceleration. The median time a home was on the market was 46 days based on April data, down from 83 days a year ago. Existing home sales in the Northeast were up 1.6 percent on a month-over-month basis in April. Sales were up 4.9 percent from April of last year. Home prices in the Northeast were up 5.1 percent for the year to a median price of $245,100.
• At this writing, major equity markets are up over 100 percent since January 2009. Stocks are still trading close to historical medians of price to earnings at around 18 times earnings.

S&P:

Dow Industrial Average

Consumers

• April advance retail sales were up 3.7 percent from the same month one year ago. The strongest gains were in automobiles, and non-store retailers.
• The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index hit a five-year high in May. Consumers were considerably more optimistic about the short-term outlook. Those expecting business conditions to improve over the next six months increased to 19.2 percent from 17.2 percent, while those expecting business conditions to worsen decreased to 12.1 percent from 14.8 percent.
• According to the Federal Reserve, consumer credit increased at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5-3/4 percent during the first quarter. Revolving credit was little changed, while non-revolving credit increased at an annual rate of 8 percent. In March, consumer credit increased at an annual rate of 3-1/2 percent.

 

Business and Economic Growth

• Based on advance estimates, real Gross Domestic Product grew at an annual rate of 2.5 percent in the 1^st quarter of 2013. This follows 4^th quarter growth of just 0.4 percent.
• First quarter corporate profit data will be released on June 26. Corporate profits advanced 6.8 percent in 2012 after growth of 7.3 percent in 2011. Net dividend distributions in the 4^th quarter of 2012 were up 23.2 percent from the same quarter a year ago.
• With respect to corporate financial reporting and related transparency issues, many investors are concerned with recent SEC rules that relax the reporting standards for subsidiary activity. At a time that investors and policy makers are seeking a more complete understanding of complex corporate structures and offshore activity, the new disclosure rules are moving in the opposite direction. This makes the work of institutional investors like state pension plans and federal and state tax policy analysts more difficult.

 

The SEC rules were discussed in a May 22 Wall Street Journal article. The Journal reported that some of the biggest U.S. companies have quietly removed hundreds of offshore subsidiaries from their public financial disclosures over the past several years. Software maker Oracle Corp., for instance, disclosed more than 400 subsidiaries in its 2010 annual report. By 2012 the list had been whittled to eight—five of which were located in Ireland. Oracle declined comment. Google went from over 100 subsidiaries reported in 2009 to zero. Microsoft, FedEx and Raytheon also shed hundreds of subsidiaries from their reporting.

The reporting change stems from SEC rules that demand disclosure only when the subsidiary activity is deemed “significant”. One result of the change is that companies limit information about offshore operations, in particular units operating in countries regarded as tax havens. For many investors, even small disclosures matter. Information about a company's subsidiaries can indicate whether its operations have diversified, how complex the company’s financial transactions may be, and how global income is moving. The lists of subsidiaries have been a reliable source for such information.

***END***

Tara Downes
Director of Communications
Office of the State Comptroller
860-702-3308