The public hearing called by Public Works and Parks and Rec Committee Chairman Councilor Mike Rohde was held this evening at Washington Middle School. Nine city councilors listened to over 60 people express their opinions on the proposal, virtually all in favor, with many more supporting through applause and cheers. Only one speaker, who noted that dissent is what makes America strong, gave a quiet but well-measured response as to why he was opposed, and felt money should go to higher educational priorities which benefit more children in the long run. Two others, Arlene Dunlop and Andy Piatek, regular critics of Council spending at Council public comment sessions, were surprisingly non-committal on the idea, although borderline opposed. I was clearly expecting more opposition from them.
I was impressed by the respect of the public for all speakers, however. Even though the room was mostly filled with supporters, they listened quietly and applauded politely when the lone dissenter spoke, as well as when Arlene and Andy finished. It made me proud of our citizens, and was a far cry from some involved in the debate on the proposed zone regulation change around the Saab Scania site last year, who catcalled and yelled over recognized speakers who opposed their position against the zone regulation change. And while I wished there were more to be heard from those with concerns on the sports complex, because it helps decision-making when you hear all sides, I congratulate the organizers of the presentations tonight. People did their homework, and a lot of the youth (mostly Platt football players, but some younger ones as well) got their first taste of public speaking, and I hope they see what it takes to get involved in their community. (The cheers for the young Meriden Raiders were the loudest!) As we hear time and again, they are our future.
I was interested in the two proposals around the funding side of this issue, which is very important to me. Former mayor Joe Marinan suggested dedicating part of the annual Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) which the City authorized each year to the tune of about $7.5 million on average. He said we should work within this spending pool, but buy less dump trucks or other priorities funded with this money (for example, building upgrades and maintenance, street and sidewalk repair are often funded within the CIP). Jim Fredericks calculated that it would only cost pennies a day for annual principal and interest payments assessed to the 17,786 taxable properties (not including commercial) in the City. That may be true, but when added to the pennies a day for everything else that makes up our $175 million annual budget, those pennies can break a bank. But it was a creative way of overcoming the objection regarding cost. (And by the way, Jim, I caught the West Point reference.) Andy Piatek suggested soliciting 1,000 citizens for $1,000 a piece, and offer a tax break in return. Not sure that's workable, but again, it was nice to see a few people thinking about the cost issue.
The hearing concluded after nearly 3 hours, with the Public Works committee going into session. I left at that point, as I will be awaiting their recommendation to the full Council before it comes to Finance, which will have to consider the cost issue in earnest if the Council supports the project. As a few speakers noted, it is not an easy decision to make, but we're elected to make it. The public hearing was successful in that it gave the public an open opportunity to tell its representatives what they wanted. Tonight they clearly wanted a sports complex. We will need to decide soon because of the deadline for the grant. We will decide, soon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
9 comments:
As a resident of the City of Meriden I was very proud to see the number of people getting involved in the City. It would be great to see more participation at other City Council meetings. The only thing I found a little unsettling was the disinterested look of City Councilman Brian Kogut, I thought he could have at least looked over the prepared paperwork offered by Tom Ryan. I thought the purpose of the meeting was to hear the views of our citizens and see what data they are offering. Maybe in the future he could take the time to look over material that some of the lowly citizens offer him.
I am not opposed to Meriden having a modern sports complex suitable for football and multi-sports. My concern is that updating Falcon Field may not be the best solution. The issue of traffic on Westfield Road on game nights can not be understated.
I would encourage the council to determine if the legislation providing the state funding for the project is limited to the one site only, and, consider whether the complex might not be better suited to construction on the land owned by the City in the Bailey Ave. region.
If the complex can be located elsewhere I would strongly encourage the council to then consider selling the Falcon Field location for appropriate development purposes and utilize that money to help fund the cost of the sports complex.
Chuck, thanks for your post. The legislation, Public Act 05-6 from last June's special session reads as follows: "Sec. 17. (Effective from passage) Notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 173 of the general statutes or any regulation adopted under said chapter, the town of Meriden is authorized to renovate and improve the athletic fields adjacent to the Washington Middle School, known as Falcon Field, in an amount not to exceed four million dollars and shall be subsequently eligible for school construction grant assistance provided a completed grant application is submitted to the Department of Education prior to June 30, 2006. The full cost of renovation and improvement shall be deemed eligible costs for the purpose of grant calculation. The grant for construction assistance shall be fifty per cent of the total costs of the project. The renovated and improved fields shall be used primarily for school-related activities."
So it has to be Falcon Field. The urgency of a decision by the City Council exists because of the requirement to submit the grant application by 6/30. The Public Works committee voted unanimously after the public hearing to support the project in concept, and referred to Finance for appropriations. Th Finance Chair, Brian Kogut, who sits on both committees, has requested further information from staff around traffic studies and necessary traffic improvements that may add to the cost. The Finance Committee will want to know all potential costs that could go beyond what is reimbursable by the grant. A public hearing for a bond resolution will also be required before the full City Council can take a vote, up or down. The next meeting of Finance is Thursday, March 23, where the committee will take the issue up. If approved there, then the public hearing will be scheduled by Brian, the bond resolution will be voted on , and the Council should be able to take a final vote in April. That's the timeline as I see it.
Steve,
Thanks for the clarity on the site. I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth but the city would have had more flexibility if the legislation were less prescriptive.
Putting $4 million or more into Falcon Field effectively locks that site into that use for several decades. Good luck in your deliberations.
I would like to see this project put to a referendum for all taxpayers to decide. That public hearing was a one sided affair with all the coaches, sports teams, and former athletes, ad nauseum. Let the people who will be footing the bill decide once and for all! Thanks
Anonymous 8:42-
Even if a referendum were possible, there is not enough time to start and finish that process before the grant deadline. And although the hearing may have been one-sided, there was ample public notice and news articles on the subject where those opposed could have made their case before the committees. One speaker, however, did mention a referendum (it may have been you, Anonymous.).
There is still a Finance Meeting where the committee will consider the costs to the City, and a public hearing for a bond resolution if the Finance Committee approves.
But right now, based on the hearing, personal discussions I've had and emails I've received, it appears the public and the press is in favor of the project and its cost.
It was extremly disturbing that City Councilman Brian Kogut refused to look at the data being presented as well as being interested in pro information being presented fpr Falcon Field.
I would like to see how many council members would put up with similar working conditions, if they were put in a similar situation?
Past council members placed thousands of hard working coaches, athletes and supportive staff in deplorable conditions that they would never accept!
Remember you represent the citizens!
Steve, Great work on this blog. I know many of us certainly appreciate the time and energy you have put into this project. The fact that you not only keep residents informed but also take the time to insightly respond to comments is most impressive. Given that, I believe that there is a strong smell of a taxpayer revolt beginning to simmer in our modest little town. Comment on the street and a number of recent newspaper editorials, as well as postings on this blog seem to bear this out. There is a very large, but yet to be heard "silent majority" who are deeply concerned with the tax rate in Meriden. There is nothing to indicate that the City Council is willing to "tighten the city expenditure belt". On the contrary, we have a number of very expensive proposals and projects on the table, that will certainly increase the tax burden. Sure, if we can afford it, we'd all like to have all day kindergarten, state of the art high schools and atheletic fields. The reality is, we can't. As one blogger recently described -there is a reluctance of non residents to move into Meriden because the tax rate mitigates the relatively lower cost of initial home ownership. Factored out over a typical home mortgage lifespan, it would be more advantageous to buy in a suburan area, at an initial higher cost, but substantially lower tax rate. I would like to see Meriden get their own "house" in financial order, before we undertake such expensive projects which will ultimately continue the spriral of higher tax rates. Thanks again.
Anonymous 8:35, thanks for your post. It's great to read the opinions of some interested citizens who take the time to view this space. The reason I like doing it is because it forces me to reflect a bit on what is in front of us, and it helps me frame questions of staff, other elected or appointed officials, and the public at large that I might miss when I race through a normal day, as we all do. And what I read here is of value to me, because I know the people who write in have to take the time to collect their thoughts before they post. There's a clarity that's more apparent than a verbal discussion (or often, a soliloquy!). I have a tendency to think out loud, and this makes me look inward a little more. It's a good exercise.
Our taxes are high, I agree. I pay them too. But it's not as easy as it seems to just cut taxes. And despite what it seems, the Finance Committee, from which the Council generally takes its direction on spending, is pretty tough when making those decisions. You don't identify yourself in your post, but I invite you, and any other reader, to attend the budget hearings. You'll hear staff grilled on justifying their expenses and proposed increases, and suggestions for cuts. In many cases our hands are tied, and there is little discretionary spending that we have the freedom to cut that would make a difference.
And to the new proposed projects, specifically all day kindergarten and the sports complex...well, these initiatives generated from the public, not the politicians or staff. As they came forward with a lot of support, it is our duty to consider them from all sides...the same as we did with the petition regarding referendum. How the vote turns out on all these is a function of information gathering, public (and press) opinion, and ultimately personal decisions. These are all debated at great length, and the final decisions never please everybody. But we're elected by the citizens to represent them in the policy decisions facing the city, and we are chosen to run and elected to serve based on the public's trust that we'll do the best we can.
Well, enough navel-gazing for one night. Keep them cards and letters coming.
Post a Comment