Tonight at the regularly scheduled Town Council meeting I will be asking to waive Rule 5 in order to present to the town (on behalf of The Fund) the donation for the Independence Day celebration which includes all the costs for the event (the fireworks, the town services, overtime for police and fire, etc.) as well as all the costs for the R Band performance which we were also able to save.
The meeting starts at 6:30 and I am expecting to be able to waive Rule 5 fairly early if you wanted to stop by and just see the Town Council vote on accepting the donation.
Thank you again Wallingford for helping us to get it done.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
TONIGHT - (May 28, 2013) The Wallingford Fireworks Fund will be presenting the donation to Wallingford at the Town Council meeting for the 2013 event
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Public Information meeting with State of Connecticut Department of Transportation regarding the Wallingford Railroad Station Relocation
This is going to be item #9 on the Town Council Agenda for Tuesday May 28th; the meeting itself begins at 6:30PM
There is no way to be certain when the item will come up and it may be taken out of order; if you have any interest at all on this I would suggest you attend the meeting.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Outdoor dining: a palatable concept; Ordinance would extend hours, amend ‘archaic thinking’
As published in the Record Journal Thursday May 23, 2013
By Andrew Ragali
Record-Journal staff
aragali@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224
Twitter:@AndyRagz
WALLINGFORD — Town councilors said Thursday that they believe proposed changes to an outdoor dining ordinance will help downtown businesses attract more patrons.
“Let’s loosen it up a little bit to promote downtown businesses,” said John Sullivan.
A public hearing will be held Tuesday on the repeal of an ordinance that prohibits restaurants with outdoor seating from using umbrellas bearing the names of producers of alcoholic beverages. The new ordinance would also allow patrons seated outdoors to order drinks without ordering food, and to drink out of bottles.
The new ordinance also would extend outdoor dining until midnight. Currently, outdoor dining is supposed to end at 11 p.m. “It was archaic thinking,” Town Councilor John LeTourneau said of the ordinance enacted in 2004. Restaurant owners have voiced their concerns previously, he said.
“I assume it’s a good move for businesses at this point,” Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. said. “I don’t see that it’s harmful.”
The proposed changes were approved by the Town Council Ordinance Committee on April 4. The committee is co-chaired by Craig Fishbein and Vincent Cervoni. The entire Town Council must vote on the issue after the public hearing.
Cervoni said Thursday that the ordinance change doesn’t only cover outdoor dining areas that serve alcohol. The revision clarifies how far an outdoor dining area can protrude onto a sidewalk.
The revision states that there must be enough space on the sidewalk to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Town Council Chairman Bob Parisi said proposed revisions “make the ordinance a little more business friendly.”
“We certainly don’t want to work against our businesses,” Parisi said.
In March, Cheryl Milot, owner of Gaetano’s Tavern on Main, offered her concerns to the committee. She argued that outdoor dining should be allowed past 11 p.m.
“There are times that we have to tell people, ‘You’ve got to come in now,’ “ Milot said at the time. “We do have people who come, have dinner and linger and have a couple more cocktails.”
Councilor Nick Economopoulos said Thursday that the changes will encourage business.
“I don’t see our town as being too rowdy,” he said.
Councilor Jason Zandri said the town should not be overly restrictive about drinking in outdoor dining areas.
“I definitely support it when I look at what other towns allow,” he said.
Photo by Dave Zajac courtesy of the Record-Journal
Patrons of Gaetano’s Tavern on Main enjoy a table outdoors Wednesday in downtown Wallingford. An ordinance being considered in town would, among other things, allow patrons seated outdoors to order drinks without ordering food, and to drink out of bottles.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
MY TAKE - Wallingford budget passes with additional cuts
So as two points of reference you have the blog post I put up on Monday May 13th titled Wallingford Budget to be decided upon at the 5/14 Town Council Meeting and the story that ran in the Record Journal on Thursday May 16th titled Wallingford budget passes with additional cuts.
For clarification purposes from the article I am going to first address the following:
Town Councilor Jason Zandri, who supported Sullivan’s amendment, said increasing the tax rate to balance the budget instead of cutting education money would only mean an additional $5 a month for the average household.
“The lesser of the two evils here is to charge a little more in taxes,” said Zandri, a Democrat.
I want to have full context and explanation around this because as printed it is not fully clear.
The comments I made of "an additional $5.00 a month per average household" would be the TOTAL additional taxes charged IF we saved the additional Board of Education cuts AND included the increase in taxes that Mayor Dickinson already approved.
Mayor Dickinson approved $46.00 a year of additional taxes for median assessed homeowners and we were discussing an additional $14.00.
The "lesser of two evils" (further tax increase) comment came AFTER we had proposed other alternatives. I would rather pass on $14.00 of additional taxes than cut the Board of Education budget further.
We offered to raise the revenue side (income) calculations and proposed some other cuts to totally negate the tax increase and save the additional cuts to the Board of Education budget. This was voted down 6 to 3.
We offered to use an additional $280,000.00 from the rainy day fund to offset the additional cuts to the Board of Education budget. This current budget already included $4.3 million dollars from that fund allowing $6 million to remain behind - an additional $280,000.00 was easily handled. This was voted down 6 to 3.
We offered to up the taxes an additional $14.00 a year to avoid the additional cuts to the Board of Education budget. This was voted down 5 to 4.
At the end of the day, three ways to get the job done were proposed and all were rejected. It is pretty clear that the intent was to make sure this cut stayed since they went through so much trouble to keep saying "no" to every solution provided. If they wanted to correct the problem another way they could have offered it. They didn't. They had their solution already there - add further cuts to education.
If you favor this outcome then you've voted the correct people into office in 2011 and they have represented you well.
While I am disappointed with the cuts I am content with the process at how we arrived at this outcome; the people that did show up to vote, elected officials to perform this work on behalf of them and they carried out that duty.
If you think one of the other solutions provided was better or something else should have been suggested then you need to consider more like minded people when you go to vote in November.
As a follow up to that - only 37% of the registered voters showed up to vote in the last local election; the minority of about 6,000 voters is having their say for the majority of all Wallingford residents (approximately 45,000) many of whom cannot vote like the children in the school system.
More food for thought. At the end of the day, your local elections are at least as important as the Presidential ones (where Wallingford voters turn out at 85%). They impact your property taxes and the type of local services you receive, from Police and Fire to town operations. It also impacts the public school system where your children and grandchildren go to learn and become productive members of society.
It is important to vote always; to me there is more impact being one voice of 25,000 (the number of registered voters in Wallingford) over one voice of 150,000,000 (the approximate number of registered voters in the United States).
For clarification purposes from the article I am going to first address the following:
Town Councilor Jason Zandri, who supported Sullivan’s amendment, said increasing the tax rate to balance the budget instead of cutting education money would only mean an additional $5 a month for the average household.
“The lesser of the two evils here is to charge a little more in taxes,” said Zandri, a Democrat.
I want to have full context and explanation around this because as printed it is not fully clear.
The comments I made of "an additional $5.00 a month per average household" would be the TOTAL additional taxes charged IF we saved the additional Board of Education cuts AND included the increase in taxes that Mayor Dickinson already approved.
Mayor Dickinson approved $46.00 a year of additional taxes for median assessed homeowners and we were discussing an additional $14.00.
The "lesser of two evils" (further tax increase) comment came AFTER we had proposed other alternatives. I would rather pass on $14.00 of additional taxes than cut the Board of Education budget further.
We offered to raise the revenue side (income) calculations and proposed some other cuts to totally negate the tax increase and save the additional cuts to the Board of Education budget. This was voted down 6 to 3.
We offered to use an additional $280,000.00 from the rainy day fund to offset the additional cuts to the Board of Education budget. This current budget already included $4.3 million dollars from that fund allowing $6 million to remain behind - an additional $280,000.00 was easily handled. This was voted down 6 to 3.
We offered to up the taxes an additional $14.00 a year to avoid the additional cuts to the Board of Education budget. This was voted down 5 to 4.
If you favor this outcome then you've voted the correct people into office in 2011 and they have represented you well.
While I am disappointed with the cuts I am content with the process at how we arrived at this outcome; the people that did show up to vote, elected officials to perform this work on behalf of them and they carried out that duty.
If you think one of the other solutions provided was better or something else should have been suggested then you need to consider more like minded people when you go to vote in November.
As a follow up to that - only 37% of the registered voters showed up to vote in the last local election; the minority of about 6,000 voters is having their say for the majority of all Wallingford residents (approximately 45,000) many of whom cannot vote like the children in the school system.
More food for thought. At the end of the day, your local elections are at least as important as the Presidential ones (where Wallingford voters turn out at 85%). They impact your property taxes and the type of local services you receive, from Police and Fire to town operations. It also impacts the public school system where your children and grandchildren go to learn and become productive members of society.
It is important to vote always; to me there is more impact being one voice of 25,000 (the number of registered voters in Wallingford) over one voice of 150,000,000 (the approximate number of registered voters in the United States).
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Wallingford Budget to be decided upon at the 5/14 Town Council Meeting
This is your last chance to speak on any items that come up for change on the budget; I will post the full agenda but I can tell you right now it will be a long meeting.
Please see the below information regarding the changes being proposed due to an expected $531,411.00 shortfall from state funding.
The proposal is to make changes to nine general fund expenditures, the largest of which is expected of the Board of Education budget. This is being done to prevent a further increase in taxes.
Before this shortfall of funding from the state, taxes were proposed to go up approximately $46.00 per household on an median assessed home ($191,000.00). If your property is less than this, you could have expected a smaller increase and if it was larger then it would be more.
If these changes are not made or some other changes are not proposed and adopted then the only way to gap the $531,411.00 would be to raise taxes further. To do that the tax increase would need to go up by about an additional $26.00 so the total change for this year would be about $72.00 as listed above rather than the current $46.00
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Meriden (and other towns) are about to “eat our lunch”
The much discussed Wallingford Incentive Housing Zone needs to become a part of our own reality to an area of development such as the one below outlined by Meriden (and by other towns along the rail line) or else we run the risk of not being in a position to compete with them.
In the 1970s Wallingford very wisely established the Industrial Zones and the Wallingford Industrial Park area which led to a boom of development for years. That boom has to this day bolstered the base in our Grand List but it’s pretty much at a plateau.
The Incentive Housing Zone and other transit oriented zones in and around the rail line is the next boom.
The commuter rail line for all the pro and con arguments is coming - question Wallingford needs to ask itself is “do we want to be a destination stop or a place for people to board and go elsewhere?”
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Town Council votes big boost to mayor’s pay
As published in the Record Journal, Wednesday May 1, 2013
By Eric Vo
Record-Journal staff evo@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2235Twitter:@ericvoRJ
WALLINGFORD - The Town Council voted unanimously to increase the mayor’s salary by $12,000 at a budget workshop Tuesday night.
In Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr.’s $147.94 million budget proposal for the next fiscal year, he kept his salary at a figure that has been the same since at least 2002 — $73,140. With the $12,000 increase, the mayor’s salary would increase to $85,140.
According to the Town Charter, compensation cannot be changed during the term of the incumbent mayor. Dickinson’s term is ending after this year, so the salary for the next term can now be set.
Town Council Vice Chairman Vincent Cervoni, a Republican, said he believed the position’s salary should be comparable to what area chief executives are making.
As of 2011, Southington Town Manager Garry Brumback was paid $149,000 per year; Meriden City Manager Lawrence J. Kendzior was paid $139,000 annually and Cheshire Town Manager Michael Milone earned $131,350 per year.
Dickinson, a Republican, has repeatedly refused raises because of the state of the economy. When a motion to increase the mayor’s salary was introduced by Cervoni Tuesday night, Dickinson advised the council to be cautious.
“It might be good to wait on this until we know what’s going on with the larger picture,” Dickinson said. “There’s so much going on with the state.”
But Town Council Chairman Robert F. Parisi said he would rather the councilors vote on the motion and remove it in the future if it came down to it.
Since the town’s budget doesn’t take effect on the first day of the year, but rather in the middle of a year, the 201314 budget would only be affected by $6,000, according to Councilor Jason Zandri, a Democrat who will run against Dickinson later this year. The budget for the following fiscal year would include the entire $12,000, he said.
Cervoni said he was trying to be conscious of the taxpayers when determining how much money to increase the mayor’s salary by. He tried to choose a number that “would minimize the impact on the taxpayer,” he said. But Zandri said $12,000 is “a rounding error.”
“It wouldn’t affect taxpayers’ money at all ... it’s too low of a number to change the mill rate or affect the taxpayer,” he said.
Although the Town Council voted to increase the mayor’s salary, the $12,000 increase isn’t exactly carved in stone, according to James Bowes, the town’s comptroller.
“Just because it is in the budget, doesn’t mean it’ll happen,” he told the council.
Zandri said there are a number of ways the salary increase could change. The Town Council still has to vote to approve the budget and Zandri said Dickinson can veto it if he sees something he doesn’t like. While there is a possibility the salary increase may not come to pass, Zandri was pleased to see the other councilors supporting the raise.
“It’s a start,” Zandri said. “The time to do this is now.”
By Eric Vo
Record-Journal staff evo@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2235Twitter:@ericvoRJ
WALLINGFORD - The Town Council voted unanimously to increase the mayor’s salary by $12,000 at a budget workshop Tuesday night.
In Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr.’s $147.94 million budget proposal for the next fiscal year, he kept his salary at a figure that has been the same since at least 2002 — $73,140. With the $12,000 increase, the mayor’s salary would increase to $85,140.
According to the Town Charter, compensation cannot be changed during the term of the incumbent mayor. Dickinson’s term is ending after this year, so the salary for the next term can now be set.
Town Council Vice Chairman Vincent Cervoni, a Republican, said he believed the position’s salary should be comparable to what area chief executives are making.
As of 2011, Southington Town Manager Garry Brumback was paid $149,000 per year; Meriden City Manager Lawrence J. Kendzior was paid $139,000 annually and Cheshire Town Manager Michael Milone earned $131,350 per year.
Dickinson, a Republican, has repeatedly refused raises because of the state of the economy. When a motion to increase the mayor’s salary was introduced by Cervoni Tuesday night, Dickinson advised the council to be cautious.
“It might be good to wait on this until we know what’s going on with the larger picture,” Dickinson said. “There’s so much going on with the state.”
But Town Council Chairman Robert F. Parisi said he would rather the councilors vote on the motion and remove it in the future if it came down to it.
Since the town’s budget doesn’t take effect on the first day of the year, but rather in the middle of a year, the 201314 budget would only be affected by $6,000, according to Councilor Jason Zandri, a Democrat who will run against Dickinson later this year. The budget for the following fiscal year would include the entire $12,000, he said.
Cervoni said he was trying to be conscious of the taxpayers when determining how much money to increase the mayor’s salary by. He tried to choose a number that “would minimize the impact on the taxpayer,” he said. But Zandri said $12,000 is “a rounding error.”
“It wouldn’t affect taxpayers’ money at all ... it’s too low of a number to change the mill rate or affect the taxpayer,” he said.
Although the Town Council voted to increase the mayor’s salary, the $12,000 increase isn’t exactly carved in stone, according to James Bowes, the town’s comptroller.
“Just because it is in the budget, doesn’t mean it’ll happen,” he told the council.
Zandri said there are a number of ways the salary increase could change. The Town Council still has to vote to approve the budget and Zandri said Dickinson can veto it if he sees something he doesn’t like. While there is a possibility the salary increase may not come to pass, Zandri was pleased to see the other councilors supporting the raise.
“It’s a start,” Zandri said. “The time to do this is now.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)