Catch up.

I know, I know...where have I been?

Well, it is summer, and Council and committee meetings have been reduced (one wag said everytime we cancel a meeting we save the City $1 million!). Our house is in shambles due to long overdue remodeling as a result of water damage over a year ago; my paying job is in the middle of its busy season; and weekends are devoted to my daughter's softball team. So it's been hard to hit the blog of late, but I haven't forgotten it.

The best news we've recently received was an increase from Moody's for our bond rating, to A3 from Baa1. This is basically a financial report card which states to municipal investors that Meriden is not only financially sound, but with a solid future. It also means our taxpayers save money when the City does have to obtain financing for capital projects (street repair, building improvements, school construction...and yes, Falcon Field). I'm very pleased with this rating, which dropped several years ago. It's been one of my goals on the Finance Committee to see it return to this level, and this goal has been achieved. Now we need to maintain it, and seek to improve it once more in the future.

The Council approved the sale of property (the old Hanover House and adjacent lots) on Hanover St last week, as a result of placing it on the open market from one of our "on rotation" realtors. It happened to be Maier Real Estate who handled the sale, and yes, it's owned by one of the councilors, Sandy Maier Schede. However, she abstained from all discussion, debate, and voting on anything to do with this piece of property (she herself did not represent the City in the sale; one of the brokers in her office did) as the Code of Ethics requires. Nevertheless, the losing bidder, and some members of the public, would like to imply that this was a "shady" deal. It was not, and I will spend some time in a future post to explain how the City acquires and disposes of property...all with an approved process.

I'm amazed at the dialogue occuring regarding Councilors Lynes' and Santiago discussion on bilingual signs aimed at controlling litter. Both women may have their own point of view, but the piling on regarding what languages are on signs is frankly distracting everyone from the real issue: people are littering in the City, making it look a mess, and spitting in the eye of personal responsibility. The Golden Rule, 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you' is known in all languages, and really shouldn't even need a sign. Come on, pick up after yourselves! And special kudos to the woman I saw early last Sunday morning, obviously on her walking exercise regime, with a plastic bag in her hand. She traversed apace south on Bee St, and east on East Main, all the while stopping periodically to pick up a can, stray piece of paper, or small bit of trash as she moved forward. I lost track of her by Dunkin Donuts, but I looked back, and the street was litter-free. And I know she didn't think anyone was watching. But I'm real glad she lives in Meriden.

If everybody did a little of what that walking woman did every day, we wouldn't need any signs...and people would have to find something else to pick on Patty and Hilda about.

Soap Box

We're back. It's been a busy month in our family, and time and family, work and Council activities hasn't let me post for a bit. Nevertheless, a few stalwarts have been sending in notes, and I appreciate that. I'll try to post more and respond better in the next few weeks.

The City is picking up some overdue expenses of the Humane Society, which provides the City a needed service in animal control, but has suffered from board turnovers and policies that work against them. How would you improve this situation?

The estimates for the Falcon Field project came in, at $5.6 million. The reaction of the Council was: no way! The Finance Committee, after much study and public input, did agree and recommend to the Council to support up to $2 million to match the State grant. We frankly can't believe the planners didn't pay attention to that limit of $4 million. The Finance Committe will take the matter up this Thursday. This councilor will not be supporting any increase.

The Bicentennial festivities are starting to heat up. I hope all of Meriden partakes in some of the excellent events planned. Let's really be proud of our 200 years and show it at the parade.

What's on your mind about the City?

The Soap Box

Well, as a recent poster noted, it's gotten pretty boring around here. The budget is done, the Daffodil Fest is over, the softball fields are open, the cops are on the street, and the mayor and his wife have had their new baby.

So time to put out the soap box and see what's on your mind.

Meriden's Budget, 2006-07

The City Council will be voting tomorrow night on the budget recommended by the Finance Committee. Barring any major changes proposed and debated on the floor, this budget will produce an increase of 1.99 mills, or an overall tax increase of just under 5%. A good portion of this increase, near 78%, is due to increases in education and public safety. Increased cost of health care, and energy increases are also significant cost drivers.

The BOE is receiving a little over $2 mllion from last year's original approved amount, a large amount no doubt, less in percentage than recent years. (Last year's appropriation was adjusted up due to a return of a part of the BOE's surplus, but this figure was not used as a "base.").The committee considered the excess paid to ACES for Edison School tuition, both in the current fiscal year and the proposed budget request for FY2006-07. The Finance Committee also factored in an expected increase of funds to come from the State for both special education and increased energy expenses. If the State does not grant these funds to the BOE, the Finance Committee will need to consider other appropriations for these costs to the BOE.

One of the few areas where the Finance Committee increased the City Manager's recommended budget was in the Police Department. Based on a recommendation from Council leadership, an increase of $170,000 to the Police overtime budget was inserted. This amount was approved by the Finance Committee as a necessary expense to increase the operations of the Crime Suppression Unit, in order not only to suppress crime in our inner city, but also to prevent it. The Finance Committee also added in $30,000 to assist funding of next year's Daffodil Festival, a line item that was not funded in the City Manager's recommended budget. Although this year's event enjoyed superior weather and crowds, which will raise funds for all involved, it is important that the City continue its support for this signature event.

This is my 11th budget since first elected to the Council. They get tougher every year, and I hear the constituents' pleas to cut. Unfortunately, the "Big Idea" for cutting taxes was not forthcoming, either by the City Manager, the Finance Committee, or the public. Unfortunately, the costs of government are impacted by many areas where we do not have control. The War on Terrorism, Katrina rebuilding, an unstable energy environment, and the Bush Administration's tax cuts all seem to require that the Federal Government decrease appropriation to the states. The states in turn must decrease the level of fundings to the municipalities, without reducing previous mandated legislation from both the federal and state level that cities and towns must implement. The ones left at the bottom of the hill are the local property owners, you and me. I pay the taxes too, and wish there were a way to reduce them. At best, we were able to minimize the increase. And next year brings revaluation....

HB 5525 and the City's Power Plant

On a separate front involving the power plant that is yet to be completed in Meriden, there is a bill in the General Assembly that, among other things, would allow the regulated utilities, (read CL&P, UI) to re-enter the energy generation market, one that was de-regulated several years ago to improve efficiencies and stabilize rates. In reading the bill, I think this section is detrimental to Meriden, in that it would forestall and perhaps eliminate the completion of this plant, one that was allowed in the first place for the taxes it would generate, and the land that would be transferred to the City. After a long hard-fought battle, it appears the land will be Meriden's soon. With this bill, however, the tax part of the deal is now in danger. I wrote the following email to our delegation and copied the Council tonight.

It is my understanding that this bill, "An Act Establishing an Energy and Technology Authority" contains provisions that could be detrimental to Meriden. If approved as proposed, it could seriously delay and even suspend the completion of the independent power project in Meriden currently owned by NRG. (Detailed status on the bill can be tracked here).
.

Specifically, allowing the regulated utilities back into the generation business will upset the capital markets that have financed existing efforts by the private sector since energy deregulation was implemented, and will increase ,not decrease rates. Currently, private investors have several billion dollars invested in generation in CT as designed by de-regulation. The incremental re-regulation envisioned in HB 5525 will serve to put all of those assets at greater risk in the market. Lenders will respond as they always do by requiring higher return for their investment. Cost of debt service will increase at the vast majority of the plants in CT.

Consequently, allowing regulated utilities back into generation will cause the cost of capital for proposed approved projects, not only in Meriden, but also Oxford and Middletown, to increase to the point that they cannot be competitive. The result is they will not be built now or ever. Meriden's reason to allow its plant to be built was to assure a strong and increasing tax revenue over time. Passage of this bill will negate Meriden's efforts to accomplish that goal.

Another part of the bill, as I understand it, specifically excludes natural gas as a fuel for a plant proposed under the RFP. (Meriden's plant is designed to be fueled by natural gas, which is why it was located where it is, near the Algonquin Gas Line). It mandates that coal, utilized as fuel for an IGCC plant, be the only fuel allowed. This despite the fact that integrated gasification combined cycle technology (IGCC) is not a competitive source of energy and cannot be financed without a placing most of the risk (as much as two billion dollars of risk in the bill) on rate payers. Financial markets / lenders will not underwrite an unproven technology, constructors will not guarantee operation or performance and component manufacturers will not guarantee more than their individual component's operation. The risk of technology failure rests on rate payers. $2,000,000,000.00 of risk! I strongl believe that the state's rate payers, if asked, would pass on that risk. They are relying on their legislators to make that decision for them.

Buddy, I know you voted for this in committee, and there are parts of the bill that make sense for the state, I'm sure. But I think the delegation should work to remove language that allows the re-entry of the regulated utilities into the generation business, one the state was compelled to de-regulate because they were not efficient when they DID generation before, and let the private markets do their job when the energy industry and its financing stabilizes. Otherwise, Meriden will have a mausoleum on its hillside, instead of a tax generator.

Thanks for considering this long post. I do not speak for the City Council, but am copying them as they should be interested in how this bill could reduce the possibility of future tax revenues they worked hard to obtain, over a difficult 6 years.

This is one of those issues discussed at the State level which isn't sexy, but could have a real impact on our City in the long run. A lot of money is on the table surrounding energy (just consider what it is costing us to heat our homes, light our rooms, and fuel our cars, and the punishing changes occuring there on a daily basis, not just monthly or yearly). A lot of Meriden's future revenue is on the table with this bill, and we need to make sure Meriden's interests are protected. What do you think?

NRG Land Transfer update

The City Manager advised City Council leadership yesterday that we are one step closer to obtaining the land owed to the City by NRG. The City is due approximately 330 acres as part of an agreement with NRG when they received approval to build a power plant on the former Summitwood property. Earlier this year the State Attorney General's office filed an injunction on behalf of the Siting Council to enforce their order given in 1999 to complete the transfer. (see the 1/14/06 R-J article reporting on the AG and Siting Council's action here.).

The City has completed its environmental assessment and title search as part of the agreement and will formally request the transfer from NRG next week. At that point, according to the agreement, NRG has 60 days to transfer the land. NRG has a number of encumbrances to remove, but that should not forestall the transfer, otherwise the Siting Council can take further action, including revoking NRG's permits for the power plant. That action could have severe financial consequences for NRG, and not in their best business interests.

Once again, the City has done what has been required, as we have ever since the power plant project began. It is time for NRG to complete their part of the deal.

Bulky Waste

It's been a little quiet here, so I thought it might be time for a new poll.

The mayor and Councilor David Salafia submitted a resolution last week for consideration by the Finance Committee. They recommend that citizens who are current with their tax payments be allowed two free drop offs at the landfill. Currently, payments must be made when dropping off any bulky waste: $20 per carload, $40 per truckload, each time a dropoff is made. For the past two years, this service has undergone a lot of debate during the budget vote. It is a large ticket item in the budget, and when trying to cut costs, it's an easy target to eliminate. But it's a service that many residents expect and use. Take the unofficial poll and let us know how you feel. Remember, it's not a scientific, statistically valid exercise, but it will be interesting. And, if you have better ideas, post them here in the comment section. Who knows, your suggestions may be implemented.

Council Meeting Roundup: 4/3/06

Last night's meeting was proceeded by a Special Finance Committee meeting, which took up the matters of public hearings for both the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and the Falcon Field project. With the exception of the usual rant and rave of Frank Rotella (yes, he's back after a lengthy vacation courtesy of the State), virtually all speakers approved of the City spending for the proposed sports complex. Even Arline Dunlop jumped on board the bandwagon, with a challenge to all the old jocks to have an Old Timers game on the turf field. Not a bad idea, but I'm not paying the liability premium! The bond resolutions passed, both in committee and ultimately on the Council floor, after extended discussion on the cost analysis prepared by the City Manager at my request. After all is said and done, the net cost to the City would be about $400,000, when taking into account the cost avoidance of upgrades to grass fields at Ceppa, and bleacher/press boxes at Ceppa and Falcon, as well as field maintanance savings. With the increased usage expected for football, soccer, band competitions and Washington Middle School's students, this is a good deal. We'll await the final costs once the design and plans are prepared and bid out. The expected total cost is estimated at $3.3 million at this stage, with 50% coming from the State.

The CIP was approved, (including seed money for the Hubbard Park playscape), but still below the Council's self-imposed bonding cap. The goal here over time is to pay for capital improvements out of operating funds, instead of paying interest. It is a conservative and fiscally prudent path to follow, but takes discipline to manage the costs.

On the Economic Development side, the Council approved a zoning regulation change that will eliminate building homes in rear lots. The intent is to deter unnecessary over-development and reduce density in residential areas. Public safety was also a concern, as fire equipment often cannot reach buildings in rear locations. It is a good change for Meriden. The Council also approved the City to dispose by sale certain properties downtown on Main Street. Currently, they house tenants including Castle Craig Theatre and Kitchens by Glen. The Council directed that appraisals be conducted to determine a market price, and then have several proposals that had been solicited to be considered. It is my hope that any successful proposal include plans to keep the theater intact, and that market-based housing be developed on the upper level. More to come.

The police and fire budget will be considered this Thursday evening at City Hall. Come one, come all.

Budget Cutting:BOE

Well, it's apparent that there aren't many ideas surrounding the City budget. OK, time to unleash the hounds regarding solid ideas in reducing the BOE budget. Remember, keep it clean. It's about the kids....While the City Council has no control over the line items the Board budgets, the bottom line is decided there. If the ideas are viable, I'll make sure the BOE hears about them. The Finance Committee, too.

Budget Cutting

"No government can exist without taxation. This money must necessarily be levied on the people; and the grand art consists of levying so as not to oppress.''
Frederick the Great

The Finance Committee is starting to tred through the City Manager's budget, and the BOE gave their presentation last week. Over the next several weeks, other large departments (e.g., police/fire, public works and parks&rec) will also undergo the Committee's scrutiny.

I read the letters to the editor of the RJ, and hear from people on the street that we need to cut spending. I'd like to hear the ideas of where the City could cut. What services, what positions can be eliminated without affecting the City's quality of life. For the time being, let's leave the BOE's budget as a separate discussion. I know it's a big target, but for discussion's purposes, let's focus on the City's expensed for now. Try to be as specific and constructive as possible. Broadbrushed statements like "Cut everything by 10%" isn't realistic. I really would like to read proposals I can bring before the Committee for serious review and consideration. Suggest away...

Sports Complex 3/23

Last night's Finance meeting was a 4 1/2 hour affair where the main topic was kids. For the first hour, the Committee listened to the Board of Ed's presentation on their $96 million request for funds to teach Meriden's children. That's a lot of money for readin', writin', and 'rithmetic, but the schools of today are charged with so much more that the days of the one-room school. The committee grilled the BOE (which crafted their budget this year as a committee of the whole) on several line items that showed significant increases over last year. We were also advised that unexpected cuts from the Federal government in key grants, as well as uncertainty over the final state grant through ECS, already has the Board preparing for program cuts that will not please parents. No Child Left Behind was also discussed, especially as to its impact on the budget. No one disagreed with NCLB's main premise, but the lack of funding by the Feds to support the required (and detested) testing requires taking money from other critical educational line items. Tuitions for students who go out of District (this includes Edison Middle School, vo-ag students, and approximately 140+ with unique special education requirements that cannot be provided in the City) topped $10 million. A brief dialogue on the perennial BOE vehicles took place, with the Mayor and Board President Frank Kogut agreeing to sit together for a more detailed talk. The City Manager's budget cuts the BOE's request to $94+ million. The Finance Committee will work this number even more.

The next major agenda item was the proposed Falcon Field turfed complex. Representatives from Wethersfield High and Central CT State University, both institutions with turfed fields, gave an overview of how the fields are constructed, maintained, and what they've done for their respective programs. Again, from my perspective the financial analysis, as well as parking, traffic and neighborhoo impact, was of most interest. I've asked the Finance Director to prepare a more detailed pro forma for the Council to see before it votes on the Committee report. The annual cost to the City will be approximately $120,000 over the next 15 years, plus maintenance, where there will be significant savings against today's program. The committee unanimously approved the project with an amendment I proposed: that this project would be applied against the City's self-imposed bonding cap, regardless if we could exempt it according to state guidelines. This means that the City Council will have to make harder choices on other spending priorities that are generally bonded (street paving, sidewalks, equipment purchases, building maintainance, etc). Nevertheless, the proposal since it was first introduced as a function the state grant procured by Senator Gaffey has undergone a tremendous amount of research, scrutiny and debate. I imagine some people will be surprised by Brian Kogut's and my vote in favor, but our concerns were met.

Our final item was the Capital Improvement Plan, where we earmarked $20,000 to provide seed money for the Hubbard Park Playscape Committee, who are raising funds to provide a new, safer, and handicap-accessible playscape in our jewel park.

This was a long post, but it was a long meeting. Over $98 million on the table considered for Meriden's kids. You can't say we don't care.

Do you support a new sports center at Falcon Field for an additional cost of $2 million?
	Yes
	No
	Yes, if my taxes are unaffected
	Need more info
	No opinion
Free polls from Pollhost.com

More on Meriden Planning

This afternoon the third meeting of the committee working on the updating of the City's Plan of Conservation and Development (aka "Master Plan") took place. Two major items were on the agenda: the first was agreeing on a vision statement which, after review from last meeting's input by the members and some discussion on the desired residential population growth over the next 20 years, was accepted. As soon as I get the final draft from planning staff, I will post here. The second was an extremely interesting and informative presentation from C. James Gibbons, a UConn professor at the Center for Land Use Education and Research (CLEAR). (A good use of our state tax dollars...no charge for this presentation and Jim's formidable knowledge. Factoid: he's a Meriden native!). The committee arranged to have his presentation videotaped for public viewing on the cable access channel. I urge you to watch it. Jim gave a great overview on what the planning process should consider, including the statutory requirements that all towns and cities are under to meet. One point he kept returning to was that public input is critical. Another was that the local officials, not the consultant, should be prepared to educate the public on the plan as it evolves. Be assured that both these elements will be adhered to in the process.

Jim also shared some of the work CLEAR is doing, and pointed us to their website, www.clear.uconn.edu. One particularly interesting slide dealt with land cover. For instance, it shows that since 1985, with all the development that took place through 2002, 25% of Meriden is still forested. Granted, it's a drop from 28% 20 years ago, but it's illuminating. It points to the type of resource information the City must catalog and understand before we finalize our Master Plan.

The next step is to hire a consultant that will help guide the committee in its work. This is planned by May. The whole process will take 1 to 2 years, but I think Meriden is well on its way. For more information, please contact the City Planner, Dominick Caruso at City Hall. His number is 630-4081. And watch the presentation by Jim Gibbons if you get a chance.

Meriden Planning

There's been an interesting discussion thread developing in the Comments to the "State Tax Cuts" post from a couple weeks ago. A couple posters have given opinions on how planning for economic development has been less than desirable in the recent, and not so recent past. This is an important topic, as the City must do a better job in attracting and retaining businesses in order to expand the tax base and reduce pressure on current commercial and residential property taxpayers. While we all await for true property tax reform (whatever that means!), we must be more strategic about using the resources we have at hand. That means land, (whether developable or re-developable), labor, incentives, and most important, leadership.

There has been some long-term planning to overcome obstacles to economic development, most visibly in flood control and downtown revitalization (CIty Center Initiative). A significant effort is currently under way under the auspices of the Planning Commission, which is updating the City's Master Plan of Conservation and Development. Chairman Rico Bucilli is directing a committee made up of representatives from the City Council (myself and Brian Kogut), the Planning Commission, the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Conservation Commission, Inlands and Wetlands Commissions among others. They meet monthly (next meeting, tomorrow, 3/21) and will over the next year prepare an updated plan to guide the City's development into the 21st century. There will be ample opportunity for the public's review and input. I will do my best to update you here, but feel free to attend the meetings, which are public.

What would be your priorities as this plan evolves?

Public Hearing: Sports Complex 3/13

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.

Non Profits and You

During our last council meeting we were faced with two resolutions to provide additional funding to the Meriden Raiders and Salvation Army. There was quite a debate. Contrary to some opinions, we don't settle these things in caucus. The discussion revolved around whether we should provide non-profit agencies additional funding after they have received monies through CDBG grants (this is money we recieve from the Feds). I am interested in your thoughts as we will be faced with more and more of these requests in the future.

Budget 06-07

" People who complain about taxes can be divided into two classes: men and women." ~Author Unknown

The City Manager delivered his budget message to the City Council this week. Brian Kogut, the Finance Committee chairman, has scheduled several budget hearings for key departments to present their budgets for consideration. These departments include the Board of Education, whose budget makes up more than half of the total; police and fire; and public works. The submitted budget equals a little more than $175 million, almost $6 1/2 million more than the current budget ending June 2006. This represents a 3.82% increase, and would cause our tax rate to rise by 2.35 mills. According to the City Manager, this means the tax increase on a median priced home in Meriden would be almost $20 a month, or $235 for the year. Critical cost drivers are no surprise: escalating employee benefits expense, especially in health care, and also required pension contributions; energy costs; and educational costs for our schools.

And although economic development has been healthy, and our grand list rose by almost 2%, the revenues expected are offset by less than average additional revenues from the State proposed by the Governor. Federal revenue which passed through the state to the City is also declining. The City Manager and his staff nevertheless propose a budget with little flexibility for cuts if the City wishes to maintain current services. It will be the job of the Finance Committee to see if the proposed increase can be reduced even further. The challenge every year grows harder. I invite members of the public to share their thoughts on what services could be reduced or eliminated without harming the quality of life severely in Meriden. I also would like suggestions on improving revenue, especially in terms of economic development. Feel free to share here, or come to the budget hearings. The dates can be obtained by calling the City Council's office at 630-4125 during business hours, or checking the public meeting calendar on the City Website.

Week in Review

The first week of this new blog is now over, and I'm very pleased with the response it has generated. We've had over 300 visitors, and obviously a number have posted comments to topics of interest to them. And I've only had to delete one that got out of hand in the beginning of the week. I congratulate and thank anyone who's posted, either anonymously or not. Your viewpoints have been enlightening, and I'm sure they're being read by a number of policy makers, both on the city and state level.

The hottest topic has been the sports complex. It's unfortunate the weather forestalled last night's public hearing, but in the interest of safety, it was the right thing to do to reschedule. I hope there will be a wealth of information available when the public is heard on March 13 (5:30, Washington Middle School. It will be videotaped.).

On Monday, the City Council meets for its bi-monthly meeting. Of particular note is that the council will take a final vote on the Charter Revision Commission Report. Personally, I will be supporting the commission's recommendation on the proposed referendum on significantly large city expenditures, the sole item they were charged with by the Council to investigate as a result of a petition last year. I'll also support the technical corrections to the Charter they recommend, as well as a loophole regarding Board appointments. I will be interested in the discussion on the balance of the recommendations by the rest of the Council, but I believe the Public Comment process is satisfactory as it stands. City Council rules allow that to change with a 2/3 vote without resorting to changing the Charter, and I'm comfortable with that.

The City Manager will also present his budget message to the Council, which will be referred to the Finance Committee for deliberation over the next couple months. I've seen a draft, and I believe Larry Kendzior and his staff worked hard to put a difficult budget together for the Council's consideration. There will be budget hearings scheduled by Brian Kogut, Finance Chair, and a public hearing, before it is accepted and a mill rate is voted on in May.

Also, it's my understanding that the Mayor had requested Ross Gulino to resign his recently appointed seat on the Planning Commission, and Ross acquiesced. The mayor has placed Art Geary's name on the agenda for approval Monday. I respect Ross' decision, but I'm sorry he will leave the Commission before he had a chance to offer his experience. He's already done good things in the City, and I hope he continues to be active in making Meriden better.

I think a lot was learned over the past couple weeks about the appointment process. I hope to discuss this more here in the future.

Thanks again for your interest in "Meriden City Council Talk." I look forward to hearing from all of you (and more) as we go on.

Public Hearing on Sports Complex Postponed

Due to weather conditions, the public hearing scheduled for this evening has been postponed until March 13, 5:30 p.m. at Washington Middle School.

State Tax Cuts

The legislature is currently debating Governor Rell's proposed car tax elimination and property tax credit cut (see "Rell Bid to Drop Cart Tax Hits Rut" in today's Hartford Courant). We are beginning to analyze the potential impact on our budget planning in Meriden, not only for now, but future years. I know our state delegation has been reading this blog, I'm sure they'd be interested in this forum's feedback.

What do you think about the state tax cut proposals?

Ground Rules

Well, as I said in my initial post, I will be learning as we go along. The intent of this effort is to provide an open forum for information and an exchange of opinions on issues of interest to the citizens of Meriden.

I hope when information is posted here, the facts are accurate. But if they're not, or need clarification, I expect feedback that will correct any errors. Opinions, however, are subjective, and I look for them to be free-ranging, conflicting and controversial at times, supported or attacted depending on a writer's personal point of view. That's the point of this blog.

What will be unwelcome, however, are personal attacks and profanity. These are not allowed on the council floor and in fact are ruled out of order. Speakers, whether councilors or the public, are refrained from such action. That will happen here. Facts can be challenged, opinions can be debated heatedly. But personal name-calling or attacks, and profanity, will not be allowed. I hope this forum can be respectful of contributors, and keep out of the gutter. Let's be considerate of each other, OK? You can still get your point across.