Voting History

Table of Contents

Grant $150,000 to the Farm Assistance Program

Date : October 24th 2023

Summary : The Glastonbury Town Council voted to allocate $180,000 in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to create a Farm Assistance Program (FAP), which aims to support local farmers facing financial distress due to a particularly tough year. The Council also approved transferring $40,000 from the ARPA-funded Small Business Program to this newly created Farm Assistance Program, with the consensus that these funds could be used by farmers to match any state grants, provided the state allows such matching.

Discussion :

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glastonbury Town Council hereby approves an allocation of $180,000 in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds for the Farm Assistance Program (FAP), as described in a report by the Town Manager dated October 20, 2023 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Glastonbury Town Council hereby approves a transfer of $40,000 from American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funded Small Business Program to the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funded Farm Assistance Program (FAP), as described in a report by the Town Manager dated October 20, 2023. Discussion: Mr. Luiz provided an overview on the guidelines and eligibility of the proposed Farm Assistance Program. The Town Council reached a consensus that the Farm Assistance Program grant funds could be used by Glastonbury farmers as a match for any state program/grant, provided that the State would allow it. Mr. Cavanna noted that he would be recusing himself from the vote due to conflicting interests. Chairman Gullotta moved on to public comment. Andy Reale of 167 Tryon Street stated that he supports this grant for area farmers and remarked that it has been a tough year to say the least. He noted that the damage to the farms is beyond the scope of a normal year. Mr. Reale noted that this is federal money and explained that farmers missed out on the grant given to small businesses. He stated that he thinks farmers more than qualify for this grant money. Chris Bassette of 77 Tryon Street agreed with the points Mr. Reale brought up. She noted that farmers are resilient and work hard. Ms. Bassette explained that this is federal money given to the Town for this purpose. She noted that the money will not burden the tax payers, as one Council member previously stated. Ms. Bassette noted that this is federal money and added that the area farmers missed out on the small business grant. She thanked the Town for their efforts and added that it has been an extreme year. There were no Zoom comments. Mr. Cavanaugh noted that farmers were left out of the first small business grant. He noticed that approvals for this grant would come back to the Council. The Council members reached consensus to allow Town staff to administer the grant approvals. It was also agreed that an eligible use of the Town grant funds would be a match on any state grants, providing the state allows the same. Ms. Carroll thanked the farmers for their hard work and noted that this year they have seen the struggles the farmers had to face. She noted that she brought this proposal to agenda setting in July and said that she is incredibly satisfied that this will help farmers mitigate the financial distress. Ms. Carroll remarked that it is not a solution and hopes that it will smooth the road. She stated that she is committed to helping the farming community and added that she is very much in favor. Mr. Niland noted that he has expressed overwhelming support to the farmers and added that he is ecstatic that they can help the farming community. He thanked the famers for the vitally important service they provide to the town of Glastonbury. Ms. LaChance noted that she loves farmers and stated that she is very much in favor. Ms. Wang noted that she is in favor and added that she appreciates the Town Manager adding the match on any state grants. She noted that, going forward, she would love to hear more from farmers to plan ahead for challenges. Mr. McChesney noted that there are working farms in Glastonbury that continue to provide produce and draw people to the Town. He stated that he pushed for the small business grant and said that farmers are a small business and should receive grant money. Mr. McChesney highlighted the comments made during the public comment session. He noted that it will not be easy for farmers especially after the last flooding. Mr. McChesney noted that he supports helping the farmers and wishes them the best of luck. Mr. Cavanaugh noted that he brought up the issue in July about the federal government bailing out equity firms and banks. He stated that the federal government should step up and help farmers in New England and added that they are not in the Midwest and are swept aside. Mr. Cavanaugh stated that the federal government should help New England farmers in times of catastrophe. Mr. Osgood stated that he voted against this with the rationale being that it is not a proper use of Town tax payer dollars. He agreed with some points Mr. Cavanaugh brought up about federal funding for farmers. Mr. Osgood explained that that the farms were affected by weather issues and added that weather issues will continue and are not a one-time thing. He stated that the Town cannot continue to fund this and will vote against it. Chairman Gullotta remarked that this is the beginning and not the end and explained that what needs to happen is the ability to do more, which comes via the State of Connecticut. Chairman Gullotta noted that he is glad State Representative Jill Barry is here and noted that farmers need larger tax breaks on properties and suggested looking at farm registration vehicles, significantly reducing and/or eliminating those. Chairman Gullotta stated that his big pitch is insurance for farmers and explained that aid in the form of a federal program is designed for those farms with thousands of acres. He noted that it looks like a positive vote and added that the next battle is in the legislature in Hartford where farmers can join other small farming communities and take the next step. Result: Motion passed (7-1-0; Mr. Cavanna recused, Mr. Osgood voted no).

Grant Funds to a Farm Assistance Program

Date : September 26th 2023

Summary : The program would allow local farm businesses to apply for grants of up to $10,000, with eligibility extending even to farms owned by people living outside Glastonbury, as long as the farm itself is located within the town.

Discussion :

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glastonbury Town Council hereby refers to the Board of Finance a request for determination of sufficient monies in the American Rescue Plan Act (Special Revenue) Fund, and that the proposed appropriation of $220,000 grant funds for a Farm Assistance Program is a purpose consistent with the US Treasury Guidelines, as described in a report by the Town Manager dated September 22, 2023; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Glastonbury Town Council hereby schedules a public hearing for 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 10, 2023 in the Council Chambers of Town Hall, 2155 Main Street, Glastonbury and/or through Zoom Video Conferencing to consider said appropriation of $220,000 in ARPA monies in support of the Farm Assistance Program established by the Town Council, as described in a report by the Town Manager dated September 22, 2023. Discussion: Mr. Cavanna recused himself because he is a farmer in town. Mr. Luiz explained that, under this program, farm businesses could receive a grant of up to $10,000. He reviewed the various requirements that an applicant would have to meet and noted that $40,000 of unused ARPA funding from the Small Business Assistance (SBA) program would transfer into this program Mr. McChesney does not think that appointed members of the Agricultural Commission should be excluded from this program. He supports this action as a recognition by the town that farmers have been coping with multiple hard years, not just one. Ms. Carroll agreed to not exclude those members. She also noted that some farms are owned by people who live outside of Glastonbury. She asked if they could still apply. Mr. Luiz replied yes, as long as the farm is located in Glastonbury. Mr. Niland agrees to exclude elected officials and not exclude appointed officials and town employees from this program. Mr. Osgood finds that not consistent with the way that town ordinances have been written. He asked if this is an applicable use for ARPA funding. Mr. Luiz replied, yes. Ms. Wang thinks of this as an investment in their farm way of life. She would like longer term solutions on how to help farms, such as sourcing monies available from the state or federal government. Ms. Carroll agreed with looking at longer term solutions. Mr. Osgood said he has a significant problem with this proposal because it is not the responsibility of Glastonbury taxpayers to support farming businesses. Weather impact on farming is not an anomaly, and farmers learn how to adapt to that. He said this would be using taxpayer dollars to support businesses in town, which he finds inappropriate, and that the ordinances call for the BOF to approve any off budget appropriation. He is not in favor of the concept or the motion. Mr. Osgood proposed an alternate motion, which was not seconded. Mr. Gullotta supports the proposed program, which will allow farmers to keep their farms and said that the State of Connecticut needs to come up with a crop insurance program for small farmers, which would be a positive step forward. He said that Rep. Barry supports and suggested she can move legislation into the first step. Mr. McChesney suggested a future meeting to discuss sending letters of support to their legislators. Amendment by: Mr. Osgood Seconded by: Ms. LaChance To exclude elected town officials from participating in the Farm Assistance Program Discussion: Mr. Niland noted that this will return to the Council at the public hearing, so they can make that determination then. He said the language in what they are sending to the BOF has been spelled out by the Town Attorney and the Town Charter. This is an unnecessary amendment at this point. Mr. Osgood contended that the exclusions are not included in the Town Manager’s report, so it is important to include this for the BOF’s information. Result: Amendment passed {7-1}, with Mr. Gullotta dissenting and Mr. Cavanna recused. Result: Amended motion passed {7-1}, with Mr. Osgood dissenting and Mr. Cavanna recused.

Approve the Ground Lease Agreement with The Housing Authority

Date : August 1st 2023

Summary : These two votes are a continuation of the Nye Road affordable housing project.

Discussion :

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glastonbury Town Council hereby authorizes the Town Manager to execute the Ground Lease Agreement between the Town of Glastonbury and The Housing Authority of the Town of Glastonbury, as described in a report by the Town Manager dated July 28, 2023. Discussion: Mr. Osgood explained that if the revenues and expenses are pro-rated, then the ground lease will cost the Town money to support the building, which will be owned by the GHA. He cannot support this ground lease agreement or the MOU because of the process that they went through to get here today, which failed to take significant consideration of alternate sites or the full consideration for taxpayers. This proposal has taken an office building off the tax rolls, created expenses for the town, and put in affordable housing. It is anything but dispersed. Result: Motion passed {6-2-0}, with Mr. Cavanaugh and Mr. Osgood voting against. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glastonbury Town Council hereby authorizes the Town Manager to execute the Memorandum of Understanding with the Housing Authority of the Town of Glastonbury regarding 50-55 Nye Road, as described in a report by the Town Manager dated July 28, 2023. Discussion: Mr. Osgood noted that there has been a suggestion for the GHA to contribute more than $500,000 towards this project. He asked about the possibility of adding a line item for land in the GHA’s application. GHA Director Neil Griffin explained that, right now, there is nothing they can commit to until they get to the financing of the development. Further along the development process, they will know what the application can sustain. Mr. Osgood asked that the MOU include best efforts to come up with market values. Mr. Griffin worries that would complicate their CHFA application for tax credits, as CHFA would see that as a liability. Mr. Osgood asked whether or not an MOU is a legally binding contract. Mr. Luiz stated that the Town Attorney has answered that question in the affirmative. Result: Motion passed {6-2-0}, with Mr. Osgood and Mr. Cavanaugh voting against

Right to Farm

Date : July 25th 2023

Summary : The Glastonbury Town Council has passed a “Right to Farm Ordinance,” set to take effect on August 11, 2023, as an expression of support for the local farming community. While some council members, such as Mr. Osgood, argued that the ordinance merely amounts to “virtue signaling” since there are already state laws protecting farming, others like Mr. McChesney emphasized its importance as a fallback in case of changes to state law and as a symbolic gesture to local farmers. The motion was passed with an 8-1 vote, with only Mr. Osgood opposing. The council also discussed potential future steps to further support farmers, including aligning the ordinance with state statutes and publicizing the town’s support for farming.

Discussion :

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glastonbury Town Council hereby enacts new Town Code entitled “Right to Farm Ordinance”, as described in a report by the Town Manager dated July 21, 2023 and as recommended by the Policy & Ordinance Review Committee, with said amendment effective August 11, 2023.. Discussion: Mr. Luiz explained that some Connecticut towns have adopted right-to-farm ordinances. This is a policy ordinance in support of farmers. Mr. Cavanna is happy to see this come back to them because it has been hard to be a farmer in New England this year. This is a good initiative. Ms. LaChance supports having farms in town. This is the least they can do for farmers this year. Mr. Osgood finds that this ordinance is basically virtue signaling. There is already a state law that adds protections for farming. This ordinance adds nothing. Mr. McChesney finds that it does have value because if there is a change in the state law, then they will have this on the books. Additionally, there is value in telling their farming community that they are with them. Mr. Niland is happy to support their farming community. Mr. Cavanaugh would like to see the same bail out opportunities for farmers as those received by banks. He also requested adding an addition to the Welcome to Glastonbury sign on Glastonbury Boulevard to say, “farming community.” Mr. Cavanna believes this to be a first step, which is identifying a problem. He would like this motion to be sent back to the Town Attorney so that it mirrors the state statute. Mr. Gullotta explained that this is the Town Attorney’s recommended language. He would rather take action on this and then it could be revisited. Mr. Gullotta also pointed out that Glastonbury has development rights. This council goes on record of being in support of its local farming community. Mr. Osgood stated that this has nothing to do with supporting the farming community. This action is simply not meaningful.. Result: Motion passed {8-1-0}, with Mr. Osgood voting against.

Approve Amendments to Inclusionary Zoning Regulations

Date : July 25th 2023

Summary : The Glastonbury Town Council passed amendments to the Building Zone Regulations for Inclusionary Zoning. The amendments include changes to how “affordable dwelling units” are calculated and address the issue of density bonuses for projects provide affordable housing. The move aims to provide clearer regulations for developers and to promote long-term affordable housing within the town.

Discussion :

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glastonbury Town Council hereby approves proposed amendments to Sections 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the Building Zone Regulations for Inclusionary Zoning, as described in a report by Community Development dated July 21, 2023 and as recommended by the Town Plan and Zoning Commission, with said amendments effective August 7, 2023. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glastonbury Town Council hereby approves proposed amendments to Sections 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the Building Zone Regulations for Inclusionary Zoning, as described in a report by Community Development dated July 21, 2023 and as recommended by the Town Plan and Zoning Commission, with said amendments effective August 7, 2023 and with the following modified text: Section 6.12.2 regarding fractions of a unit should read “In calculating the number of required Affordable Dwelling Units, all fractions shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number Discussion: Mr. McChesney stated that this is the cautious approach. He favors the language of in perpetuity because if they do not have that requirement, then they are setting themselves up for a nasty situation in 40 years. CGS Section 8-30g is out there, and the Town is already under water. Without this 10% requirement, the Town will just get more and more under water. He agrees with the issue of density bonuses. Mr. Osgood asked how they are handling changes to the PAD regulations. Ms. Caltagirone explained that the PAD regulations would be changed to add an additional density bonus for projects setting aside 80% of their units as affordable. The density bonus would allow for 10 units per acre as opposed to 3 units per acre. She summarized that there would be two different density bonuses: one for projects with a 20% set aside and another for projects with an 80% set aside. Mr. Gullotta stated that they knew this change was coming, so it should not be a surprise to anybody who sat in executive sessions. Motion by: Mr. Osgood Seconded by: Mr. Cavanaugh To change the definition of affordability from perpetuity to 40 years. Discussion: Mr. Osgood explained that perpetuity could create problems for people who want to build multi-family developments in town. Mr. Cavanna thought the purpose of this was to help build generational wealth for families. Mr. Gullotta noted, not for this. This matter is only for rental housing. Ms. Wang understands the rationale for changing it to 40 years. However, she wants developers to be thinking long term. The GHA is faced with the challenge of how to update and upgrade Welles Village which is an aging property. Changing it to perpetuity will set up the expectation for developers to plan for that long-term maintenance. Ms. Caltagirone noted that the Town’s definition of ADUs is silent on whether it is sold or rented. An affordable unit could be condominium or a rental, but the inclusionary requirement would only apply to rental projects. Mr. Gullotta asked, if an apartment complex decides to become a condominium complex, then the affordable unit there would have to either stay an apartment in a condominium complex or become an affordable condominium. Ms. Caltagirone stated that is correct. Mr. Osgood noted that if the apartment unit is affordable in perpetuity, then that would mean that it would have to stay a rental unit. Mr. Gullotta read in the newspaper that, in the next year or two, approximately 5,000 affordable units will become market rate. Therefore, if the Town is serious about increasing affordable housing, then they have to state that a built affordable unit will stay affordable. Result of amendment: Amendment failed {3-6-0}, with Mr. Cavanna, Mr. Cavanaugh, and Mr. Osgood voting for. Discussion on main motion: Mr. Cavanaugh is unable to vote on this motion until he receives answers to the questions he has asked tonight. Mr. McChesney stated that they are not discussing the density bonus tonight. Mr. Cavanaugh explained that PADs are in Residence A zone. Mr. Gullotta stated that, specifically, the 80% density bonus for PADs would be a GHA proposal. He does not know any private developer who would propose affordable housing at 80%. Ms. Caltagirone pointed out that a request for a PAD is not as of right for a developer. She assured the Council that they would have discretion to deny that project, as described in the PAD regulations. Ms. Wang also would like to know the way that the density bonus is written in other towns. She is uncomfortable with passing an inclusionary zoning ordinance at 10% set aside with a minimum of 10 units and waiting for a future date to discuss the density bonus because those things need to be considered hand in hand. She has looked at the literature extensively and one of the biggest highlights is that the regulation needs to be clearly defined so that it lays out the groundwork for developers to plan and build. This is in everyone’s interest. Mr. Cavanaugh’s questions would have provided more information to consider. She also finds it important to have some incentive structure for the success of the program, so throwing it out completely is inappropriate. Mr. Osgood does not find any rush to vote on this. He suggested continuing the public hearing. Mr. Luiz noted that they could add a density bonus later. Ms. Carroll would like to vote this evening. Mr. Osgood stated that the issue is not the density bonus but the language included in the proposal which would give the ability for a 3.5-acre PAD with 10 units per acre in any Residence A zone with sewer and water a density bonus of 80%. Mr. Cavanaugh has requested to know which areas those would apply to before voting, which he agrees with. Mr. Cavanaugh stated that the Town Center Mixed Use zone is of concern to him. Ms. Caltagirone found the zoning map which identifies all the areas with public water and sewer. The Council recessed for five minutes, resuming at 9:05 P.M. Ms. Caltagirone reviewed the map of multifamily development comparison. Most of the northwest corner of town is served by public water and sewer. A developer could either request this proposed density bonus in these areas or propose a rezoning of any zoning district to Residence A, within the marked areas, and request that the Council put in a PAD in those areas. Ms. Carroll asked if the Council always has a right of refusal. Ms. Caltagirone replied yes, a PAD is not as of right, but the Council has discretion to deny that zoning change. Ms. Carroll noted that any developer could come in with an 8-30g, so she would like to move forward on this tonight. Mr. Osgood asked Mr. Cavanaugh if he is comfortable with the responses he has received. Mr. Cavanaugh asked three questions which he had sent over to the Town Manager before this meeting. Two are still outstanding: in the TCMU (Town Center Mixed Use) zones, which lots were r eferred to in Ms. Caltagirone’s memorandum are affected or could be affected, and wouldthe annual income of households residing in affordable lots submitted to the Town enter the public record or not. Ms. LaChance asked if the TCMU zone is included in anything they are talking about now. Ms. Caltagirone clarified that the density bonus is not part of option 1, but the inclusionary zoning program would still apply in TCMU, regardless of whether a density bonus is considered. Result: Motion passed {7-2-0}, with Mr. Cavanaugh and Mr. Cavanna voting against.

Action to Establish Special Revenue Fund

Date : July 11th 2023

Summary : The Glastonbury Town Council approved establishing a Special Revenue Fund for the 50-55 Nye Road project, intended to collect rent payments from tenants and cover facility operating expenses. Discussion included concerns about a potential deficit, how to best use a $500,000 contribution from the Glastonbury Housing Authority (GHA), and the obligation to make payment to Solinsky Eye Care, with differing opinions on the financial handling of the property and its associated costs. Despite objections and complex considerations surrounding the transaction and a $100,000 payment, the motion passed with a vote of 5-3-1, with three voting against and one abstaining.

Discussion :

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glastonbury Town Council hereby approves establishing a Special Revenue Fund for the 50-55 Nye Road project, as described in a report by the Town Manager dated July 21, 2023 and as recommended by the Board of Finance. Mr. Luiz stated that the BOF unanimously voted in favor of the recommendation to establish a special revenue fund for Nye Road. This would be used to collect the rent payments made from the current tenants and to cover operating expenses related to the facility. Mr. Cavanaugh noted that when this was presented to the BOF, they referred to it as a deficit. Mr. Luiz explained that the BOF also expressed concern about running this into a deficit. The fund will be better off not making the approximately $100,000 payment to Solinsky Eye Care. Mr. Cavanaugh remarked that the $500,000 from the GHA was supposed to offset the over $3 million that the Town paid for the property. It seems like everything changes in this transaction. He is uncomfortable with the $500,000 being reduced by $103,000. He noted that the previous Town Manager informed the Council that the $500,000 could go back to the ARPA fund. Mr. Osgood asked if the GHA will increase its contribution from $500,000 to $603,000. Mr. Luiz replied no. The discussions he has had with the GHA’s Executive Director is for $500,000. The Town has an obligation to make the payment to Solinsky Eye Care, and Mr. Luiz does not recommend making it from the special revenue fund. He is not aware of the $500,000 contribution from the GHA being made for land or anything in particular. He thought that it was just a contribution, so it is up to the Town to rationalize how to spend the contribution. Mr. Osgood stated that, with the reduction of this purchase price, the Town will come up with $3.15 million. The GHA share should be $1 million. Now, their contribution will be only $400,000 to the purchase price and $100,000 to the special revenue fund. Mr. Luiz clarified that he is not proposing that any payment be made to the special revenue fund. The payment from the GHA would go directly from the GHA to Solinsky Eye Care. Ms. Carroll commented that this action is primarily to close out that portion of the Town’s agreement with that particular tenant. She supports closing out that portion of their obligation now. Mr. Niland agreed. He also clarified that the Town is not buying two buildings. They are buying highly sought after property and doing a service to the Town because this will become a model for affordable housing in the state. Ms. LaChance noted that other developers sought to put a CGS Section 8-30g on these properties, one of whom is constructing an 80-unit development in South Windsor. The idea that the GHA is not contributing as much is untrue. Mr. Cavanaugh agreed that it is not just land, but an asset that will need to be updated. There are more expenses to this than what is presented currently. Mr. Gullotta noted that the GHA is giving the Town $500,000. The Council can choose how to use that money. The Town Manager recommends that $100,000 of it be used to pay off a debt of the Town’s, which is a reasonable action. Mr. McChesney finds it disrespectful to suggest that the GHA is paying very little for this. They are taking on the cost to develop this project, not the Town. At the onset, the Council voted to use ARPA funds to purchase this. What they are discussing now is how best to use the $500,000 that the GHA has since offered to pay off various things to bring this project to the next step. Mr. Osgood clarified that they are not talking about the landlocked parcel. The $500,000 is just for the building that is not landlocked. Mr. Osgood pointed out that for the Town to maintain the existing building, they are required to build a parking lot. He asked if there is an estimate of that cost and how many spaces it will hold. Mr. Luiz explained that the space total is 109 for construction. Town Engineering is working on the estimate, which they will hopefully bring before the Council at their next meeting. Mr. Luiz suggests applying for a STEAP grant to fund that parking lot. Mr. Osgood asked if the grant is not obtained, would that money come out of the special revenue fund. Mr. Luiz suggests using either available ARPA funds or a capital fund, not the special revenue fund. Mr. Osgood would also like to know if they could use ARPA funds to pay for revenue loss. Result: Motion passed {5-3-1}, with Mr. Cavanna, Mr. Osgood, and Mr. Cavanaugh voting against. Ms. Wang abstained because she was not a part of the full discussion, due to Zoom issues.

Action on Purchase and Sale Agreement for Nye Road

Date : June 27th 2023

Summary : The Glastonbury Town Council voted to authorize the Town Manager to execute the Revised Third Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement for the purchase of land and improvements at 50-55 Nye Road. The amendment was necessary due to a previously approved amendment not being fully executed and subsequent developments that required revisions. The main motion was amended and clarified the Town’s acquisition on the property. One Council member, Mr. Osgood, voiced opposition to the extension agreement due to language implying the potential use of eminent domain, but the motion ultimately passed with a vote of 6-3.

Discussion :

Chairman Gullotta directed the Council back to the main motion as amended and asked the Town Manager to provide some background. Mr. Luiz summed up that on May 23rd the Council approved the third amendment to the purchase and sale agreement, extending the closing date and clarifying the Town acquisition on the property known as 50 Nye Road and 55 Nye Road. Mr. Luiz explained that the third amendment was not fully executed by the Town Manager. He noted that, since that time, further developments occurred, necessitating a revised third amendment, which has been provided in the packet materials. Mr. Luiz explained that he would only sign the Third Amendment after the Council approved lease agreements with two tenants at 55 Nye Road as negotiations with those tenants are ongoing Mr. Osgood noted that he will vote against the extension agreement due to language in section 5, which implies that the Town can take the property by eminent domain. Mr. Osgood stated that they did not get the sale contract and added that he does not believe this will be the case. He stated that he will vote against. Motion passes (6-3; Mr. Cavanna, Mr. Osgood, Mr. Cavanaugh voting no)

Appointment of Heather Simon to the Welles Turner Library Board

Date : June 13, 2023

Summary : In a contentious discussion regarding Ms. Simon’s appointment to a local council, varying views emerged on her suitability due to her prior stance on removing controversial school library books. While Mr. Cavanna defended Ms. Simon’s right to voice concerns about certain books’ appropriateness and her desire to volunteer, other members like Ms. Carroll and Ms. LaChance pointed out that Ms. Simon’s past actions could undermine the library’s mission.

Discussion :

Mr. Cavanna noted that he does not know Ms. Simon well and remarked that he believes in a fair shake. He explained that Ms. Simon was concerned about some of the books in the school library and has provided pictures and passages of those books. Mr. Cavanna explained that Ms. Simon took a stand and voiced her opinion at the school board meeting and added that it was done respectfully and done in the way the law dictates. He noted that he has a problem with Ms. Simon not being able to volunteer her time because she expressed concern. Mr. Cavanna stated that he asked Ms. Simon if she would take books out of the public library and was told absolutely not. Mr. Cavanna noted that he looked into the books and agreed that the books are not appropriate for children aged 12 and 13. Mr. Cavanna put up the images from the books Ms. Simon identified as concerning. Mr. Cavanna stated that a person should not be stopped from volunteering before speaking to them and reiterated that she should get a fair shake. Ms. Carroll explained that, as a Council, they rely on the community at large to serve on their boards and commissions. She noted that she is grateful for the work they do. Ms. Carroll explained that appointees support the mission and work of the body they are appointed to. Ms. Carroll read out the mission statement of the Welles Turner Library and noted that Ms. Simon has made comments in public meetings, social media and written comments in The Citizen that are antithetical to the mission of Welles Turner Library. She stated that she will not vote in support. Ms. LaChance noted that appointments are not a rubberstamping process. She stated that she has heard from several constituents voicing their opposition to this appointment. Ms. LaChance noted that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. She explained that Ms. Simon worked to remove a reading app from school iPads that would essentially take away 40,000 books from students. Ms. LaChance stated that Ms. Simon is opposed to 2 books: An ABC of Equality and Jack (Not Jackie). Ms. LaChance reiterated that Ms. Simon’s opposition toward two books would take away 40,000 books from kids. Ms. LaChance noted that children under 18 must have parental permission to get a library card. She explained that not everyone has the luxury to buy books and explained that, growing up, the only place she was able to get books was from the library. Ms. LaChance stated that she will not vote in support. Mr. Cavanna read out sexually explicit excerpts from a book identified as concerning by Ms. Simon. Ms. Carroll explained that it is important to clarify that these are not classroom books. She noted that these are high school books and added that parents are allowed to give the library a list of books their child cannot take out. Ms. Carroll noted these books are not handed out to young children and added that the argument made is incorrect and added that she agrees with Ms. LaChance’s point on past behavior as an indicator of future behavior. Mr. Cavanaugh noted that he does not know Ms. Simon and was told by the Chairman that there might be an issue with her appointment. Mr. Cavanaugh noted that the word “rubberstamped” was used earlier by another member and explained that, for the most part, these are rubberstamped. He explained that each party submits a form to the Town Manager’s office, and unless there is a blatant conflict of interest — an example being a developer joining the TPZ — it is handled before anything is in print. Mr. Cavanaugh explained that the current Chairman of the Library Board is a democrat who called him about the 2 republican openings. Mr. Cavanaugh noted that it is not easy finding people willing to serve in local government and deal with issues like tonight. He remarked that the comment about past behavior being a predicate for future behavior is unbelievable and added that it has come to the point of turning down ordinary citizens that want to serve the community. Mr. Cavanaugh remarked that the democrats will not always be in the majority and added that turnabout will be fair play. Mr. McChesney remarked that he does not appreciate veiled threats and noted that he recognizes that there will be other parties in power. He also noted that he recognizes that a party has the right to put in their choice. Mr. McChesney explained that they have a fiduciary duty to carry out the values and interests of the Council. He explained that the recently hired fire marshal was not a unanimous vote. Mr. McChesney stated that he does not know Ms. Simon. He noted that he has two children and urges anyone concerned with this matter to foster a relationship with their children. He explained that his approach is to be open and to be able to communicate and answer questions. Mr. McChesney remarked that he does not know why Ms. Simon is not here tonight and pointed out that there is a public comment session and added that they only heard from the Chairman of the party. He explained that his concern is that someone who strenuously objected to school books might object to something in the public library. Mr. McChesney remarked that he has been on the fence and added that he is concerned about setting a precedent. He explained that there is a concern about what this individual is going to do and added that she may be opposed to ideas expressed in books and start challenging things in the public library. Mr. McChensey noted that there are 2 republican openings and there will still be 2 republican openings. He remarked that there are concerns and explained that they have an obligation to determine who is appropriate on committees. Mr. McChesney remarked that he has no judgment and added that he does not know Ms. Simon. He noted that he only knows what has been shared and stated that he is likely to vote not to approve the nomination. Mr. Osgood remarked that Mr. Cavanaugh made a great point, that it is difficult to get people to contribute their time and energy. Mr. Osgood noted that he will make a motion to table the vote to give Ms. Simon the opportunity to speak to the Council. This motion failed with Mr. Cavanaugh, Chairman Gullotta, Ms. Carroll, Ms. LaChance, and Ms. Wang voting No Motion failed (3-5; Mr. McChesney, Chairman Gullotta, Ms. Carroll, Ms. LaChance, Ms. Wang voting No)

Revise inclusionary zoning to exclude provisions

Date : May 23, 2023

Summary : The discussion centers around potential modifications to the Town’s inclusionary zoning rules, particularly the inclusion of subdivisions creating single-family residential lots, a fee-in-lieu alternative for construction of affordable dwelling units, and a density bonus for higher percentages of inclusionary dwelling units. Inclusionary zoning is a regulatory tool that requires a given share of new construction to be affordable for people with low to moderate incomes.

Discussion :

BE IT RESOLVED, the Glastonbury Town Council hereby directs the Community Development staff to revise the inclusionary zoning amendments to exclude the following: (1) subdivisions creating single-family residential lots; (2) a fee-in-lieu alternative to construction of affordable dwelling units; and (3) a density bonus for higher percentages of inclusionary dwelling units, as described in a report by the Town Manager dated May 19, 2023. Chairman Gullotta asked Mr. Luiz if the density bonus was still included in the motion. Mr. Luiz replied that the information has not been determined. Chairman Gullotta asked if someone was willing to make a motion to include the density bonus. He explained that such a rule is currently in effect at Tryon Farm, South Mill, and other locations, and added that they are looking at apartments and condominiums. Chairman Gullotta noted that taking away the density bonus from the discussion is problematic. Mr. Niland asked if they should strike number 3 from the motion. Chairman Gullotta replied yes and reiterated that they should look at the existing density bonus. Mr. Cavanaugh asked if they should wait for a determination from the Town Manager. Chairman Gullotta explained that it would be included in the discussion and noted that the density bonus may already be in place and would just be factored into the discussion on apartments and condominiums. Mr. Luiz noted that that Ms. Caltagirone, Director of Planning and Land Use Services, is present via Zoom and can answer the question on the density bonus. Ms. Caltagirone noted that there is a density bonus in the PAD regulations, which allows for up to 6 dwelling units in residential zone A per acre. She noted that there is a table with information on the AA zone and offered to look up the precise numbers. Mr. Osgood noted that this only applies to owner-occupied units if it is in a PAD. Ms. Caltagirone replied, “Correct,” and explained that the proposed amendment will broaden the definition of affordable units in a PAD to include rental occupancy. Mr. Osgood noted that the motion to address residential rental units becomes a moot point and explained that they do not have a density bonus for rental properties. Chairman Gullotta remarked that one can see that point and explained that the larger issue is having considered density bonuses in one area and examining it in a new area. He asked if they should take density bonuses off the table immediately or discuss the issue, considering the potential advantages and disadvantages of density bonuses going forward. Chairman Gullotta noted that the density bonus is at least worthy of consideration in discussing apartment buildings and condominiums. Ms. Wang noted that she completely agrees with continuing to consider the density bonus and added that it is critical for making the regulation work. She remarked that she was surprised to see provision number 3 in the motion and asked what prompted this. Mr. Luiz noted that the language in the draft motion was based on the direction of the Leadership Team meeting. Ms. Wang stated that she supports continuing the discussion on the density bonus motion. A motion was passed to strike number three from the resolution : Mr. Osgood explained that the motion is asking the Planner to provide another draft, and the Council will continue to discuss it. Mr. Cavanaugh noted that he wanted to further answer Ms. Wang’s question and explained that it was Mr. Osgood’s suggestion to deal with apartments and rentals first. Mr. Osgood stated that he is not saying he agrees with the amendment or the concept of it and explained that the Council will just vote on further discussing it. Mr. Gullotta agreed. Motion passed (8-1-0), with Mr. Cavanaugh voting against. Chairman Gullotta returned to the main motion and noted that they are asking Town staff to prepare a presentation that would look at apartments and condominiums and explain how they might develop a set of rules around inclusionary zoning that applies to them. Mr. Osgood noted that he made the point at the previous discussions that there are complications involved with deed restrictions and owners that would be required in condominiums. He explained that condominiums are basically single-family homes that are side by side. Mr. Osgood remarked that he is surprised condominiums are included. He suggested keeping it simple, removing the condo component and deal just with rental units at this point. Chairman Gullotta remarked that it is a suggestion and asked if it has any mileage. Mr. Osgood noted that he does not see anything on condominiums in the motion. Mr. Cavanaugh explained that these are exclusionary motions and noted that Mr. Osgood wants to exclude condominiums. A motion was passed to exclude condominiums. Mr. Osgood noted that the point he made was to simplify the process. He explained that one of the benefits to homeownership is the ability to create equity, and added that a condominium does not provide the ability to create equity in a residential unit. Mr. Osgood noted that this runs into the same problems they saw in other projects. He noted that they should focus on apartments and rental units and, after a thorough analysis, revisit the condominium question if it makes sense. Ms. LaChance noted that she agrees with Mr. Osgood and added that they should focus on non-owning properties first. She explained that they do not want to get caught up in the muck of deed restrictions, and added that she is not saying she would not agree with this in the future. Mr. Niland asked if keeping condominiums in the draft motion would unnecessarily complicate the process. Ms. Caltagirone noted that Mr. Osgood’s suggestion narrows the focus and simplifies the discussion. She noted that there are further complications with the subdivision regulations. Ms. Caltagirone explained that subdivisions involve larger single-family homes, a higher cost of construction, and added that including them in inclusionary zoning is more challenging. She noted that there are differences with a condo and a single-family home within the regulations and added that subdivisions are more layered. Chairman Gullotta explained that they have dealt with condominiums in terms of Georgetown, South Mill, and other PADS and have a bit of a track record in knowing where they have been successful. He added that knowing the challenges of having individuals come back, receiving the benefits of a price reduction only to come back to the Council and say they would like the benefit of equity. He asked the Council if they think it is within their ability to combine the two things. Chairman Gullotta noted that the apartment issue is easier and added that he would not want to lose the condominium discussion. He suggested dealing with the two issues sequentially. Chairman Gullotta noted that they are behind the curve in terms of the State expectations and added that the State expectations are very wrong. He noted that taking condominiums off the table will hurt the Town. Mr. McChesney noted that the economic analysis was discussed and asked if this referred to condominiums as well. Ms. Caltagirone noted that she did not distinguish between owner-occupied and rental units, and added that it should be included in the scope of work. She explained that only applying inclusionary zoning to rental properties might incentivize developers to only build condominiums. Ms. Caltagirone remarked that she is not sure what the profit margins are for rental vs condominium and added that this question needs to be researched. Mr. McChesney noted that he agrees and added that he does not want to make the process needlessly complicated. He explained that ultimately all they are doing is asking the Town to redraft documents to look at later. Mr. McChesney noted that he is fine with having the conversation continued. Chairman Gullotta noted that a vote in favor of the motion is to remove condominiums from consideration. Result: Motion failed (4-5-0), with Ms. Carroll, Mr. Gullotta, Mr. Niland, Ms. Wang and Mr. McChesney voting against. Chairman Gullotta directed the Council back to the main motion. Result: Motion passed (6-3-0), with Mr. Cavanaugh, Mr. Cavanna, and Mr. Osgood voting against.

Prohibiting cannabis establishments

Date : April 25th, 2023

Summary : The Glastonbury Town Council approved an amendment prohibiting Cannabis Establishments in the town, effective from June 1, 2023.

Discussion :

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glastonbury Town Council hereby approves an amendment to the Building Zone Regulations, Section 3.27 – Regulation of Cannabis Establishments to prohibit Cannabis Establishments, as recommended by the Town Plan and Zoning Commission, and as described in a report by the Town Manager dated April 21, 2023, with said amendment effective June 1, 2023. Mr. Niland has no interest in making it easier for youth in town to have access to cannabis. If people wish to purchase it legally, they can go to surrounding towns. He also does not know what the effect will be on property values, so Glastonbury does not need to be a “guinea pig.” Their community is healthy enough to not need to sell their souls for a few quick bucks. He also noted that this action is not irreversible, as a future council can choose to change this decision. Mr. Cavanaugh and Ms. Wang offered compliments to Ms. Caltagirone, the Director of Planning and Land Use. Ms. Wang also thanked the public for voicing their concerns, especially the youth who spoke tonight. Ms. Carroll is a parent of three school-aged children. Her priority is to keep her children safe and allowing marijuana retailers into town undermines that fundamental goal. Mr. Osgood thinks that the State should decide this, rather than drug cartels. To allow cannabis establishments in Connecticut, but not in Glastonbury, makes no sense. Cannabis should be regulated, like tobacco and alcohol, so that it can be consumed safely and legally. He will not support the motion. Mr. McChesney did not support the State legalization of marijuana, but he did not have a say in that. However, he has a say in what happens in Glastonbury. As a father of two young children, he seeks to make it harder for youth to get marijuana in town. Result: Motion passed {8-1-0}, with one vote against by Mr. Osgood.

Contributing to Town Manager retirement fund

Date : March 28th 2023

Summary : The Glastonbury Town Council approved an additional $5000 for the Town Manager retirement fund.

Discussion :

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glastonbury Town Council hereby approves a $5,000 contribution to the Town Manager’s retirement fund. Mr. Gullotta explained that the Town Manager has not wanted more than what unaffiliated staff receive. The Council honored that request but added a small additional amount to his retirement fund. When the Town Manager’s salary came up for consideration a few months ago, Mr. Gullotta omitted discussing it with the Council. This is his final opportunity to add a $5,000 contribution to the Town Manager’s Retirement Fund. Result: Motion passed {8-1-0}, with Mr. Osgood voting against.

Restore $200,000 to the Town Operating Budget

Date : March 21, 2023

Summary: An amendment to restore $200,000 to the Town Operating Budget in Glastonbury was proposed by Mr. Niland, and seconded by Ms. Carroll. The Council members were divided over the decision, with some advocating for lean budgeting due to inflation and potential tax increase considerations, while others favored supporting the new Town Manager and preserving quality services. The amendment ultimately passed with a 5-4 vote.

Discussion :

Amendment by: Mr. Niland and Seconded by: Ms. Carroll To restore $200,000 to the Town Operating Budget Mr. Osgood favors cutting more money, rather than adding. Mr. McChesney does not favor adding the $200,000 back but neither does he support cutting more. Mr. Cavanaugh does not want the new Town Manager’s career to start with $200,000 in the hole, so he will support the amendment. Mr. Niland agreed. Mr. Gullotta stated that the BOF was reluctant to make any reduction to the Town’s side, and this money will help the new Town Manager start off on the right foot. Mr. Cavanna supports the amendment. Mr. Osgood noted that the budget as proposed will result in an average tax increase of 4.5% to residents, which he finds excessive. Adding $200,000 back into the budget is irresponsible, given the current tax situation. Ms. LaChance agreed, noting that this is an especially tough year. Mr. Cavanaugh clarified that, absent revaluation, taxes would have gone up by just over one percent. Ms. Wang will also vote against restoring the $200,000, explaining that the BOF made the recommendation with fair consideration of all options. Given the inflationary environment, she finds the cut appropriate. Mr. Cavanaugh explained that the BOF originally wanted to cut $1 million from the BOE, but settled on a compromise, which was to take a percentage from the BOE and a similar percentage from Town Operations. The Town budget is a lean one, so Mr. Cavanaugh would like to leave it as it was originally proposed. Mr. McChesney contended that the BOF’s final recommendation to the Council was a split cut between the BOE and the Town. Additionally, Ms. Lintereur noted a few weeks ago that a majority of the town residents will experience a substantial tax increase because of revaluation, so reductions should be made to help citizens. Ms. Carroll stated that the Town provides services which enhance the quality of life in Glastonbury. The Council must be thoughtful about where reductions will be made, and the Town budget is not the place. Mr. Johnson explained that his budget did not account for $385,000 of new revenue in Governor Lamont’s budget. This would more than offset the proposed $200,000 reduction, so there will be no tax impact on voters. Mr. Gullotta stated that it would do more harm to not restore this money than to have the cut be sustained. Mr. Osgood explained that cuts made to the BOE budget over the years have amounted to $7 million, which is a sizable savings. $200,000 may not be much, but it can also add up over many years. Result: Amendment passed {5-4-0}, with Mr. Osgood, Ms. Wang, Mr. McChesney, and Ms. LaChance voting against.

Hire an Assistant Town Manager

Date : March 28, 2023

Summary : A bi-partisan amendment to add $85,000 to the Town Operations budget for an Assistant Town Manager was rejected by the Glastonbury Town Council. The Council was divided, with some members advocating for the amendment as a crucial part of succession planning and others opposing it as premature and financially imprudent in a tough fiscal year. The amendment was ultimately voted down with a 4-5 vote.

Discussion :

Amendment by: Ms. Carroll Seconded by: Mr. Cavanaugh To add an additional $85,000 to the Town Operations budget to support a half-year salary for an Assistant Town Manager Ms. Carroll supports a plan to assist the new Town Manager. Ms. LaChance believes that a succession plan is necessary for the town as an insurance policy, but cannot vote for this because of the $200,000 that was just restored to the budget. Mr. Niland finds that not supporting a succession plan is reckless. Ms. Wang contended that while succession planning is crucial, this proposal is overly narrow and restrictive. A succession plan is very different from prescribing a specific person. Other towns have different approaches to this, so there is no one-size-fits-all. If something were to happen to the new Town Manager, there are long-term senior staff members who can step in to assist. Additionally, it is the Town Manager’s job is to appoint an interim manager. Mr. McChesney agreed. It is not prudent to add an $85,000 position when the new Town Manager has not even started yet, especially in such a tough year. The appropriate time to have a conversation about new succession planning is when the new Town Manager comes in. Mr. Osgood is also against this proposal. He asked how the Council would go about providing the funds for an assistant town manager in the middle of the year. Mr. Johnson explained that they would first use any available funds which could be reprogrammed from the current budget. Absent that, there could be a supplemental appropriation. Mr. Gullotta supports the proposal. Good stewardship demands creating an administrative structure that prepares for contingencies. An assistant town manager needs to be added to their organization. Mr. Cavanaugh will also support it. He noted that Glastonbury has had three town managers and the first two had assistant town managers. A succession plan has been discussed several times but never been realized. Implementing one would be good governance. Additionally, the incoming Town Manager, Mr. Luiz, has expressed support for an assistant town manager. Result: Amendment failed {4-5-0}, with Mr. Osgood, Ms. Wang, Mr. McChesney, Ms. LaChance, and Mr. Cavanna voting against.

Reduce the Education budget by an additional $200,000

Date : March 28, 2023

Summary : This motion was to remove an additional $200,000 from the BoE budget.

Discussion :

Amendment by: Mr. Osgood Seconded by: Mr. Cavanaugh To reduce the Education budget by an additional $200,000 Mr. Cavanaugh stated that the BOE has sufficient funds to absorb this reduction. Mr. McChesney supported the cuts that were made, but does not support any further reductions because of the negative impacts it might have. Ms. LaChance agreed. Result: Amendment failed {3-6-0}, with Mr. Osgood, Mr. Cavanaugh, and Mr. Cavanna voting for.

Provide funds for a new weight room at GHS

Date : March 28, 2023

Summary : This motion was to transfer $500,000 from the General Fund to pay for a new weight room at GHS.

Discussion :

Motion by: Mr. Niland Seconded by: Ms. Carroll To make a one-time transfer of $500,000 from the General Fund’s Unassigned Fund to the Capital Reserve Fund – Capital Projects Fund, for a new weight room for the high school. Ms. Carroll stated that a weight room on campus will serve all students and the community at large. However, she does not support the project at this time because it is a tough year. She does support the study on the turf field. Mr. Cavanaugh noted that the BOE did not respond satisfactorily to several concerns raised by the BOF regarding the weight room proposal. The Superintendent stated that a weight room attached to the gym would be too expensive but was unable to provide a cost estimate. Mr. Cavanaugh will not support the project until there are more numbers and rotations discussed. Mr. Osgood does not approve taking funds out of the unassigned fund balance for this project. Mr. McChesney’s bigger concern is that this is a very difficult year. They have started a dialogue about a new weight room, but they are not yet ready to vote on it. He shares Mr. Cavanaugh’s concerns that more discussions need to happen as to where the building will be the most economically viable and meet the needs of most people in town. Ms. LaChance would like to keep taxes down as much as possible this year. It is prudent to take a step back on major projects. Result: Motion failed {1-8-0}, with Mr. Niland voting for.

Town purchase of property at 50-55 Nye Road

Date : January 24, 2023

Summary : The Glastonbury Town Council has approved the purchase of a 10.86± acre property at 50-55 Nye Road using $3.15M in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds. This property can be viewed as a potential venue for affordable housing, although some members expressed reservations about the proportion of affordable units, future costs, and the ongoing negotiations with a current tenant.

Discussion :

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glastonbury Town Council hereby confirms approval to purchase the land and improvements at 50-55 Nye Road totaling 10.86± acres and an appropriation of $3.15M in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) monies allocated to Glastonbury for the subject purchase, as described in a report by the Town Manager dated January 20, 2023. Mr. Johnson explained that the landlord has agreed to reduce the purchase price by $250,000. Two tenants have agreed to not extend their leases beyond 2024. A third tenant is still working with the Town to come up with a solution. Mr. Osgood is not in favor of proceeding with the acquisition until the third tenant comes to an agreement with the Town to not exercise their renewal option. Mr. Cavanaugh stated that the due diligence note received from the Town Manager indicated a preliminary estimate of $750,000 for a new roof and mechanical units. Once the Town acquires the building, they will have to account for those costs. Mr. Johnson agreed that the building will need renovation. He suggested placing the lease revenues into an account for future improvements. Mr. Cavanaugh sees this as a runaway train project, once again. Mr. McChesney noted that the idea of utilizing the other building is to save costs for the BOE. He asked if conversations were continuing with the third tenant. Mr. Johnson replied yes, conversations continue as the third tenant is evaluating their options. Mr. Gullotta stated that this proposal offers an attractive low-density unit on that property, which will remain in perpetuity affordable, and the Town will continue to own the land. Rent will not be cheap. This is a very sensible way to tell developers that Glastonbury is not interested in CGS 8-30g applications, while greatly expanding affordable housing in town. Ms. Carroll remarked that they are evaluating the partnership options for this, so they do not yet know what the cost burden will be. This is an opportunity to create viable affordable housing in Glastonbury. Mr. McChesney added that this opportunity will provide people on fixed income with housing that they can afford. Mr. Osgood corrected Mr. Gullotta’s comments that this will be 100% affordable. Some market rate units are proposed, which he supports. Mr. Gullotta also stated that this will be in perpetuity, which they do not know if they can afford. He also stated that it will be 80 units, and they do not know that either. Mr. Osgood proposed an amendment to the motion. Amendment by: Mr. Osgood Seconded by: Mr. Cavanaugh The closing shall not take place until either the tenant or the landlord has provided positive proof that the tenant has relinquished his renewal option. Result: Amendment failed {3-6-0}, with Mr. Osgood, Mr. Cavanaugh, and Mr. Cavanna voting for. Mr. Osgood stated that the $250,000 purchase price reduction is inadequate. Additionally, what it will cost to convert that building is a whole other issue. In today’s market, it costs around $20-30 per square foot. Result: Motion passed {6-3-0}, with Mr. Osgood, Mr. Cavanaugh, and Mr. Cavanna voting against.

Begin Process for Open Space and Forest Management

Date : September 13, 2022

Summary : The Glastonbury Town Council has approved a motion to commence open space and forest management for five parcels of land, totaling 542 acres, as well as J.B. Williams Park, with the motion passing by a 6-2 vote. Some Council members prioritized maintenance for actively used parks, while others saw importance in beginning management of the former MDC property.

Discussion :

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glastonbury Town Council hereby moves forward with the five parcels totaling 542 acres off Hebron Avenue, Keeney Street, and Howe Road, as well as the J.B. Williams Park, to begin the process for open space and forest management. Mr. Osgood finds that 542 acres is a sizable piece of land, so the former MDC parcel is important. J.B. Williams Park and Blackledge Falls are actively used, so they should be properly maintained, as well. Since funding is available to pursue both, he supports the motion. Mr. McChesney agreed. Mr. Cavanna seconded Mr. Cavanaugh. It will take a while for the public to acclimate to the former MDC property, whereas the parks get foot traffic every day. Their focus should be on the parks first. Ms. Wang supports the motion because J.B. Williams is a frequently used park, and the process to begin using the former MDC property should start soon. Result: Motion passed {6-2-0}, with two votes against by Mr. Cavanaugh and Mr. Cavanna. Note : Open space and forest management is the practice of overseeing, preserving, and improving natural areas, like forests and parks, for both ecological health and public use. It often involves activities such as control of invasive species, enhancement of wildlife habitats, maintenance of recreational paths, and implementation of strategies to promote biodiversity and ecological resilience.

Allocation of $150,000 of ARPA funds to the Small Business Program

Date : June 14, 2022

Summary : This issue was about allocating $150,000 of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to the Small Business Program, a program intended to provide a stimulus to local businesses. The fund’s importance lies in its potential to help sustain small businesses, crucial components of the local economy.

Discussion :

BE IT RESOLVED, the Glastonbury Town Council hereby approves an allocation of $150,000 of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to the Small Business Program, with no single grant exceeding $5,000. Mr. Osgood finds that this money could be used instead to reduce taxes by funding projects that the Town will be covering anyway. He would rather give $20 to each person in town than a program which will only affect potentially 30 businesses. Mr. Niland finds the $150,000 to be a reasonable starting point which could be increased in the future, if need be. As a small business owner, Mr. Cavanna is pleased that the Council is finally helping some businesses who have been tragically affected by the pandemic. Mr. Gullotta pointed out that Council members identifying as small business owners cannot apply for this program. Amendment by: Mr. Cavanaugh Seconded by: Mr. Osgood To appoint two Council members (one from each political party) to the subcommittee reviewing and selecting grant applications. Mr. Cavanaugh believes that the Council should have a say on who receives the grant. Mr. Gullotta disagreed, stating that the Council should distance themselves on this matter. Mr. Osgood noted that there is not enough money to go around, so he does not want to make that particular decision. Ms. Carroll is also not in favor of having Council members on that subcommittee. Mr. McChesney finds that the less political this decision is, the better. As drafted, it is a very apolitical decision. If the Council gets involved, then it will have the perception of a political decision. Result: Amendment failed {3-6-0}, with Mr. Cavanaugh, Mr. Osgood, and Mr. Cavanna voting for. Amendment by: Mr. Osgood Seconded by: Mr. Cavanaugh That the small business grants be allotted only for prospective spending and not for prior activities. Ms. Carroll disagreed, stating that previous investment during the pandemic should also be considered. She would prefer to not limit the use. Mr. McChesney also disagreed because a lot of what they have heard from business owners has been how they have been affected thus far. The aim of this program is to aid businesses who have been negatively impacted by the pandemic. Result: Amendment failed {2-7-0}, with Mr. Osgood and Mr. Cavanaugh voting for. Discussion returned to the main motion. There were no additional comments. Result: Motion was approved {7-2-0}, with Mr. Osgood and Mr. Cavanaugh voting against.

Naubuc School Open Space Classroom Alterations

Date : June 14, 2022

Summary : This motion was to modify the open space classrooms at Naubuc to be more traditional classrooms in design. This lowers noise pollution in those classrooms and offers children safety in case of an active shooter.

Discussion :

BE IT RESOLVED, the Glastonbury Town Council hereby approves and authorizes the following actions for the project to reconfigure open space classrooms at Naubuc School with related improvements and updates: Mr. Cavanaugh voted against this when it first came to the Capital Program in March. He does not intend to support it this time either. He asked if the $3.2 million appropriation is still a good number. Mr. Johnson stated that the BOE has not indicated discomfort with that number. Mr. Osgood read that the BOE is requesting an additional $1 million to conduct the project downstairs, which would mean that the total project cost will exceed $3.2 million. He believes that this project should have gone to a referendum. He opposes the proposal and suggests a full plan for Naubuc School to go to referendum, given the large scale of the project. Mr. Niland pointed out that a grant will recover over one-third of the cost, so this is a great opportunity to get some money back. * Approves a $3.2M appropriation through the Capital Improvement Program effective July 1, 2022; * Authorizes the Board of Education to submit a grant application for the subject project with the State DAS/Office of School Construction and Grants; * Authorizes the Town and Board of Education to proceed with design and construction documents for the project; * Refers the project to the Public Building Commission to approve the final design of the project. Result: Motion was approved {6-3-0}, with Mr. Osgood, Mr. Cavanaugh, and Mr. Cavanna voting against.

Directs the Town Manager to provide a proposed small business assistance plan

Date : May 24, 2022

Summary : The Glastonbury Town Council passed a motion directing the Town Manager to provide a proposed small business assistance plan at their June 14, 2022 meeting, in a 7-2 vote. Council members debated the potential allocation amount, with suggestions ranging from $100,000 to $250,000, and the amount per grant, with a consensus leaning towards $5,000. The Council acknowledged the struggles of small businesses due to the pandemic and expressed desire to kickstart support, despite some members voicing that the funds should benefit a larger population.

Discussion :

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glastonbury Town Council hereby directs the Town Manager to provide a proposed small business assistance plan at the June 14, 2022 meeting. Ms. Carroll thinks that the Council can support small businesses while also funding capital projects. It does not have to be an either/or situation. Ms. LaChance agreed, adding that small businesses struggled to get by for two years, which cannot be discounted. Mr. Osgood countered Mr. McChesney’s statement that Mr. Johnson recommended $250,000 for the small business assistance program. Instead, he recommended either $100,000; $250,000; or other. He would like to know how many businesses would be affected by this potential grant before discussing a motion. Mr. Gullotta pointed out that this motion will direct the Town Manager to come forward with a more fleshed-out plan. The Council would then take a second vote, and the funding number might change. Mr. Cavanna commented that while the Council continues to debate this, meeting after meeting, there are small business who continue to struggle. He would like to get the ball rolling. Mr. Cavanaugh asked Mr. McChesney what kind of allotment he hopes for. Mr. McChesney stated that the $5,000 to $10,000 grant options set forth by the Town Manager seem appropriate. Mr. Cavanaugh agreed with Mr. Osgood that the ARPA funds should go to the masses and not to individuals, so he will vote against this motion. Ms. Wang agreed with Ms. Carroll that the Council could fund both capital projects and the small business assistance program. She is in favor of the $5,000 grant amount, which would total an allocation of $100,000. Her reasoning is that the ARPA funds are spent by running down a list, rather than looking at the complete remainder of the money in a comprehensive way. If there is a massive uptake of the program, then she would consider allocating an additional $150,000. Mr. Gullotta would love to see Williams Memorial Academy be made available for public hearing space, especially after last week’s packed TPZ meeting. There is now a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do that, not with Glastonbury taxpayer money, but with a state grant. Result: Motion passed {7-2-0}, with Mr. Cavanaugh and Mr. Osgood voting against.

TP&Z Does Not Need to Provide Reasons for Denial

Date : December 7th 2021

Summary : This change prevents TP&Z from needing to tell people why they were approved or denied. As Mr. Gullotta mentioned, TP&Z currently provides a reason for denial and the Council does not wish to force them to provide this.

Discussion :

delete: If the Commission grants or denies an application, it shall state upon the record the reasons for its decision. If the Commission denies an application, the reasons for the denial shall cite the specific Regulations under which the application was denied. Notice of the decision shall be published in the newspaper having a substantial circulation in Glastonbury. Mr. Osgood believes that applicants deserve to know why their application is being denied. Ms. Carroll agrees, stating that she is uncomfortable, even if they leave open the possibility of a protocol for an explanation to be involved. Mr. Niland also expressed discomfort. He noted that, if they are to err on the side of good governance, then they need to give their reasons for denial to the people who come before them. Mr. McChesney does not conceive how anyone who presents an application before the TPZ can listen to the comments of commissioners and not know why they voted the way that they did. Mr. Gullotta agreed, adding that this action does not impede the TPZ from carrying on their practice of listing reasons of denial. Result: Motion passed {5-4-0} with Mr. Osgood, Ms. Carroll, Mr. Niland, and Mr. Cavanna voting against.

Appropriates $13,000 to Send Out Postcards

Date : September 14, 2021

Summary : This resolution spent $13,000 to send out postcards to all residents of Glastonbury for purposes of voting.

Discussion :

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glastonbury Town Council hereby appropriates $13,000 to send out the postcards, as described by the Town Manager and the Town Clerk, to the residents of Glastonbury. Ms. Tanski asked that there be press releases and social media used to communicate this information. Ms. Krampitz stated that that is what they normally do and will do so again this year. Mr. Osgood believes that the Council is grossly underestimating the intelligence of the Glastonbury citizen. He will vote against this. Mr. Cavanaugh stated that 2020 was an unusual year, so making projections on the absentee ballot numbers based on that is not sound. He does not know why the idea of the ballots changed to postcards. He believes that they can depend on the electorate to turn out for votes. Mr. Niland countered Mr. Cavanaugh’s insinuation that this is an attempt by the Democratic party to subvert voting. Ms. Tanski asked where the funds will come from. Mr. Johnson stated that the money would come out of funds that are appropriated for the current year, generally for printing and postage. Ms. Tanski stated that the state legislature has made the absentee ballot more accessible than it has ever been before. Bringing national politics into Glastonbury is unfortunate, and it does not apply. All council members want everyone to vote. The question is whether the $13,000 is appropriately spent in this way or should be saved instead. Ms. Carroll believes that if it gets more people voting, then it is money well spent. She also took issue with Mr. Cavanaugh’s suggestion that something nefarious is going on by the Democratic party, calling his comments inappropriate and offensive. Amendment by: Mr. Osgood Seconded by: Ms. Tanski Mr. Osgood proposed an amendment that, instead of the postcards, they allocate $500 for advertisements to be put in the Citizen with the same information. Result: Amendment failed {2-7-0}, with only Mr. Osgood and Ms. Tanski voting for. Result: Motion passed {6-3-0}, with Mr. Cavanaugh, Mr. Osgood, and Ms. Tanski voting against.

Wage Increase to Town Staff / Bonus to Town Manager

Date : September 14th 2021

Summary : This resolution would provide a pay increase for the Glastonbury town staff and provide a $7500 contribution to Richard Johnson’s retirement fund.

Discussion :

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glastonbury Town Council hereby approves the following actions: * 2.0% general wage adjustment effective July 1, 2021. * $7500 contribution to the Town Manager’s retirement fund. Dr. Beckett thanked Mr. Johnson for his hard work and efforts over the past year. Mr. Niland echoed. Mr. Osgood proposed an amendment to change $7500 to $5000 because this is not a position that has a bonus associated with the salary. Amendment by: Mr. Osgood Seconded by: Mr. Cavanaugh Mr. Cavanaugh stated that they typically do not offer a bonus, but they contribute to the Town Manager’s retirement fund. He asked why there is a boost in the retirement fund this year. Dr. Beckett believes it was $5000 the last couple of years, but this year has been an exceptional one, with COVID-19, and the Town Manager went above and beyond to respond to the crisis. This is a way for the Town to say thank you. Mr. Cavanaugh countered that Glastonbury Police, Fire, and others have also worked very hard, and they are not being rewarded in this way. Ms. LaChance agreed wholeheartedly with Dr. Beckett, adding that this has been an unprecedented year, and Mr. Johnson’s efforts have been outstanding. Ms. Carroll agreed, thanking Mr. Johnson for his outstanding judgment and commitment to the Town. She remarked that trying to nickel and dime him for the exceptional work he does for this town is unacceptable. Ms. Tanski stated that, were she spending her own money, she would support more than a $2500 increase for the Town Manager. However, it is not appropriate for her to out give discretionary taxpayer funds, especially in a manner that is not spread out uniformly across staff but to one individual. Mr. McChesney stated that these are discretionary funds. It is wrong to paint this as a zero-sum between Mr. Johnson and other staff. This is about Mr. Johnson tonight, and he has done a tremendous job. Mr. Gullotta remarked that, just a few days after surgery, Mr. Johnson made sure that homes with concerns about flooding had services in place. He supports the motion. Result: Amendment failed {3-6-0}, with only Mr. Cavanaugh, Ms. Tanski, and Mr. Osgood voting for. Result: Motion passed {7-2-0}, with Mr. Cavanaugh and Ms. Tanski voting against.

Increase the Senior Discount from 10% to 25%

Date : April 27th 2021

Summary : This resolution was to increase the senior citizen discount from 10% to 25%. Republicans wanted the increase to 15%.

Discussion :

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glastonbury Town Council hereby increases the senior discount from 10% to 25%. Mr. Gullotta noted that he will abstain from voting on this because he would qualify for the potential reduction, as would Mr. Osgood. Ms. Carroll requested that Mr. Gullotta continue leading the discussion. Ms. Tanski agreed that both members should continue to be involved in the discussion. Mr. Osgood asked Mr. Niland to go over the economic impact of his proposed action. Ms. Tanski asked how the $16,000 reduction would impact their ongoing policy goal to have revenues make up 75% of costs. Mr. Niland explained his process for staying neutral, with $101.25 for seniors and $142.50 on the pickups. He noted that about 42% of the users who purchased passes are seniors. Mr. Osgood countered that they would have to offset the cost by increasing the fees on non-senior users, which he does not support. Mr. Niland explained that the modest increase in the tipping fees on the bulky waste facility, from $105 to $110, would eliminate the difference in the loss of revenue. Ms. Carroll agrees that seniors in Town use up less resources and she disagreed with the suggestion from Mr. Osgood and Dr. Beckett that reducing the fee for them would result in increased use of the facility. She supports this amendment. Mr. Johnson explained his calculations to close the $18,000 gap that would arise from this action. Mr. Osgood motioned to table the discussion until all of the calculations are squared away. BE IT RESOLVED, the Glastonbury Town Council hereby tables the discussion. Result: Motion failed {4-5-0}, with Ms. Carroll, Ms. LaChance, Mr. McChesney, Mr. Niland, and Mr. Gullotta voting against. Mr. Johnson stated that, as originally proposed, they would reimburse 71% of the cost at the transfer station. If they pull out $18,000, they would be at about 68% reimbursement. Mr. Osgood and Dr. Beckett believe that they are moving in the wrong direction on this. Ms. Tanski asked how the offset would work on paper. Mr. Johnson explained that the fee would be $107 for everything that is landfilled effective this July. The base difference between the $72 and the $107 goes into the closure fund. They would keep that relationship of the difference but with new numbers, $80 and $115 respectively. This means that, in a way, the bulky waste facility would be reimbursing part of the cost of the transfer station. Ms. Tanski believes that this would make it harder to track year-to-year what the true costs of operating these two entities are. She would rather they had clear numbers on their stated goals. Mr. Gullotta countered that the transfer station and bulky waste are interchangeable, and the differences are arbitrary. He supports Mr. Niland’s amendment. Mr. Johnson noted that, in order to come up with the pay-as-you-throw concept mentioned by Dr. Beckett, they would have to take a closer look at the revenue projections. Ms. Carroll added, they cannot put together those calculations by July 1, but in the meantime, they can agree on some numbers to propose for a discount on seniors and a new tipping fee. Amendment by: Mr. Osgood Seconded by: Dr. Beckett BE IT RESOLVED, the Glastonbury Town Council hereby increases the senior discount from 10% to 15%. Mr. Cavanaugh asked what the average senior discount is for other towns in Connecticut. Mr. Johnson stated that he does not know off the top of his head, but he cannot think of any examples that go beyond 10%. Mr. Cavanaugh stated that the Town was sued by trash haulers because their fees were a lot cheaper than others. The Council’s goal at that time was for revenues to make up 50% of the cost, which they raised to 75%, with the eventual goal to reach 100%. He does not support moving backwards. He also stated that their residents cannot go to other towns’ bulky waste facilities, so the comparison to other towns is not fair. Ms. Tanski supports this amendment because it creates a much smaller distortion in their budgeting. If they pass a 25% discount for seniors on permits, it will make it nearly impossible to pursue a pay-as-you-throw process in the future because no one will pay more for pay-as-youthrow if they could purchase a permit. They are wrong to rush through this action tonight. Mr. Niland does not believe that this would preclude them from pay-as-you-throw, and he is open to hearing what Dr. Beckett will report on that option. Result: Amendment for 15% senior reduction failed {3-6-0}, with Ms. Carroll, Mr. Cavanaugh, Ms. LaChance, Mr. McChesney, Mr. Niland, and Mr. Gullotta voting against. Result: Amendment for 25% senior reduction passed {5-4-0}, with Dr. Beckett, Mr. Cavanaugh, Mr. Osgood, and Ms. Tanski voting against.

Reduce the pension assumption rate from 6.5% to 6.25%

Date : March 23rd 2021

Summary : The pension assumption rate is an estimate of the return on investment that a pension plan expects to earn over the long term. Adjusting this rate can significantly affect the financial obligations of the Town and the taxpayers: a lower assumption rate means a higher current financial obligation for the town, leading to potential increase in taxes. The proposal to change the rate from 6.5% to 6.25% reflects a more conservative financial approach, supported by Republicans, aiming to avoid underfunding the pension plan; however, Democrats favored a slightly higher rate of 6.375% to lessen the immediate tax burden on constituents, arguing for a phase-in of the lower rate over two years..

Discussion :

Reduce the pension assumption rate from 6.5% to 6.25%, as recommended by the Board of Finance. Mr. Johnson provided an overview of the pension, explaining that the BOF has recommended a decrease in the investment assumption from 6.5% to 6.25%. He clarified that the Town historically has always 100% funded the actuarily determined contribution, with the exception of 2010, when there was such a significant increase, they funded it over two years. Mr. Osgood stated that the BOF made a sound, fiscally responsible decision to reduce the investment assumption by one-quarter of a percent. He would rather they be overfunded than underfunded, so he strongly recommends this action. Mr. McChesney asked what the investment assumption was in 2007. Mr. Johnson stated that, in 2007, the investment return was 8.75%, then the following year, it dropped to 8.25%. Then, for a number of years, it was reduced by about one-quarter of a percent, and most recently, it has been one-eighth of a percent. Mr. Niland is in favor of the 6.375% assumption rate. He thinks that adding $825,000 to the budget after a difficult year with another difficult one ahead is a lot to lay on the taxpayers. He noted that their actuaries were comfortable with the 6.5% rate. He also stated that they cannot count on the additional $375,000 from the ECS funding because they may not actually receive it. They have to choose, either increase the mill rate or kick the can down the road. He would rather choose a softer landing for their taxpayers. Ms. LaChance agreed, adding that the new mortality tables have saddled them greatly, but the Council has been very deliberate with the pension. Ms. Tanski stated that a savings found out of their pension obligations is not a savings to taxpayers, but it is pushing a bill off to future taxpayers and creating fiscal risk. With the exception of this year, over the past decade, their pension funds have come in under expectation. She stated that the BOF has been strongly urging them to meet their pension liabilities for years, and she agrees with them. Ms. Carroll does not object to arriving at the 6.25% rate, but she agrees with Mr. Niland to phase it in over two years, in order to save taxpayers money. She thinks it is appropriate to make the taxpayers feel the weight less in a single year if they do not have to. Ms. LaChance stated that it is disingenuous to say that they are not meeting their pension obligation. They are not meeting what the BOF has recommended this year, but they have listened to their actuaries. Dr. Beckett supports the BOF’s recommendation of 6.25% because they had so many closures last year, which resulted in enough savings to have the least impact this year. Mr. McChesney expressed frustration with this process because he feels that the role of the BOF and the Council should be to take a holistic approach to the budget, and not just focus on a certain mill rate or pension assumption rate each year. Motion by: Ms. Carroll Seconded by: Dr. Beckett BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glastonbury Town Council hereby amends the percentage recommended for the pension assumption by the Board of Finance from 6.25% to 6.375%. Ms. Tanski stated that the BOF’s recommendation is to match the assumed rate of return closer to reality and to meet their unfunded liability. This year, the BOF’s priority was the pension, not the mill rate, because pension needs had not been addressed in this way for a few years and they expect their pension obligation to go up in future years. Mr. Osgood believes that the BOF recommendation is the best for the Town. Result: Motion failed {4-5-0}, with Dr. Beckett, Mr. Cavanaugh, Mr. McChesney, Mr. Osgood, and Ms. Tanski voting against. Motion by: Dr. Beckett Seconded by: Mr. Cavanaugh BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glastonbury Town Council reduce the pension assumption rate from 6.5% to 6.25%, as recommended by the Board of Finance. Result: Motion passed {6-3-0}, with Ms. LaChance, Mr. Niland, and Mr. Gullotta voting against.

Close Recycling Center at Hebron and Manchester

Date : March 28th 2023

Summary : The issue revolves around a satellite recycling site in Glastonbury, which has been subjected to significant and continuous misuse, transforming it into a dumping ground. Despite attempts to curb the abuse, the problems persist, necessitating substantial daily maintenance. Consequently, the town council debated between maintaining the site, which some members felt served well-intentioned citizens, or shutting it down to prevent further abuse and save town resources. Ultimately, the council decided to initiate the closure process.

Discussion :

Mr. Johnson explained that there are two options: either to grin and bear it or simply shut down the site because of the repeated, sustained abuses. Sanitation Superintendent Mike Bisi explained that the program began in 1977 with four locations. For whatever reason, this site has become a dump. Over time, they have tried many different methods to curb the abuse, but it seems to no avail. It has been very labor-intensive to go out there daily and get that material into recycling as opposed to trash. The best option at this time is that they eliminate the transfer station. Dr. Beckett pointed out that the area around it is wooded, so people may dump trash there, should this site be removed. He asked how they should approach it so that they do not continue to have a problem. Mr. Bisi stated that they would look at that, but they would rather clean up the area sans the satellite site. Mr. Osgood is fine with removing the site, particularly if it is being abused. Mr. Niland stated that the amount of abuse there is staggering. However, he does not want to punish the people who use it in good faith. He suggested holding a public hearing to get public input on this. Ms. Carroll stated that she uses that site, and she believes that they should shut it down because the significant abuses there are ridiculous. If the resource is not used properly, it should be taken away. She does not feel that they need a public hearing because there have been countless updates and notices about it and the abuse continues to happen. Dr. Beckett agreed, stating that there is a full-time person just cleaning up the trash, which is a waste of town resources. Mr. Cavanaugh also uses the recycling facility and agrees that it should be shut down. Mr. McChesney is in favor of a public hearing because they owe it to the people who use this facility to at least have a say before they make a decision. He stated that perhaps if they make it clear that this is the last stop for this recycling facility, it will have an impact into what is happening. Ms. Tanski stated that she usually defaults to hope, but she does not believe that they need a public hearing because the satellite site is not salvageable at this point. The financial cost and risk to their employees is too great. Mr. Gullotta remarked that he has had several conversations with senior citizens who want to continue to use this site and do not want to go to the transfer station. He agrees that the least they could do is allow those individuals the opportunity to have their say and then go to a vote. Motion by: Mr. Niland Seconded by: Mr. McChesney BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glastonbury Town Council hereby holds a public hearing on the satellite recycling site at the corner of Hebron Avenue and Manchester Road. Result: Motion failed {3-6-0}, with only council members Niland, McChesney, and Gullotta voting in favor. Motion by: Ms. Carroll Seconded by: Dr. Beckett BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glastonbury Town Council begin the closure process of the satellite recycling site at the corner of Hebron Avenue and Manchester Road. Result: Motion passed {6-3-0}, with council members Niland, McChesney, and Gullotta voting against.

Build the GHS Fieldhouse

Date : February 9th 2021

Summary : The issue at hand was the decision of the Glastonbury Town Council to approve a $360,000 transfer from the Capital Reserve Fund to complete the GHS Fieldhouse project. The root cause of the discussion stemmed from the project exceeding its initial budget, with council members divided on whether to accept the cost overrun or seek a more affordable design. A fieldhouse is a large indoor facility typically used for sports and training activities.

Discussion :

BE IT RESOLVED, the Glastonbury Town Council hereby approves a $360,000 appropriation and transfer from the Capital Reserve – Unassigned Fund Balance to Capital Projects – GHS Fieldhouse, as described in a report by the Town Manager dated February 5, 2021 and as recommended by the Board of Finance. Mr. Johnson explained that there were 15 bids on the project, and they are $360,000 shy of awarding the contract to complete the project by August 2021. Mr. Niland opened the floor for public comment. There were no comments. Dr. Beckett stated that they have tried to get the price lowered for a long time, but it did not happen, so they just need to do this now. He proposed an amendment to formally attach Mr. Johnson’s report, which has language that the project could potentially be bonded and that the Capital Reserve Fund could potentially be reimbursed. The intent is to incorporate tonight’s funding proposal as well as the previous funding, for the entire project cost. Amendment by: Dr. Beckett Seconded by: Mr. Osgood Ms. Carroll asked to not delay this action. She struggles with the idea of retroactively bonding something and shifting the burden to future residents. The Board of Finance approved the appropriation, so it is not appropriate to bond, in this case. Ms. LaChance agreed, adding that they have already set aside the money, so she does not understand why they would go out to bond. Mr. Niland concurred, stating that bonding will drive up the cost. Mr. Osgood clarified that the amendment does not say that they will go out to bond, but that they have the ability to bond. Ms. Tanski stated that there is a way to think about bonding that does express the distribution of cost and value of a building. This kind of project would have been ideal to bond because it is a 50-year use project. However, due to the need to get this project funded, and given that the money has already been set aside, bonding for this project does not make sense. She concluded that the Council does recognize the value of bonding for the future benefit of the Town when it comes to land acquisition. Mr. Niland stated that they have some big-ticket items coming up that will need to be bonded, so he does not want to take up bonding space for something that they can pay for right now. Mr. McChesney stated that he is personally averse to debt. For this particular project, the payments have been structured in a responsible way, paid for over a few years, so he is uneasy with looking to retroactively bond. Result: Amendment failed with all but Dr. Beckett, Mr. Cavanaugh, and Mr. Osgood voting against {3-6-0}. Mr. Osgood stated that they should send the project back and ask for a design that is more affordable for the Town. Mr. Cavanaugh agreed, saying that this has become a runaway train. Mr. Niland agreed that the project is overpriced, but it needs to be done now. Mr. McChesney and Ms. Tanski agreed with Mr. Niland. Result: Motion passed with Mr. Cavanaugh and Mr. Osgood voting against {7-2-0}.

Increased Building Height in Town Center

Date : December 1st 2020

Summary : The Glastonbury Town Council had a resolution to increase the building height in town center. This change was bundled with other updates to the Building Zone Regulations. The changes to permitted floors were excluded and the ordnance normalized floor heights.

Discussion :

BE IT RESOLVED, the Glastonbury Town Council hereby approves amendments to the Building Zone Regulations as follows: Text Amendments: Sections of the Building-Zone Regulations regarding building heights: 4.1.9, 4.2.9, 4.3.9, 4.4.9, 4.5.9, 4.6.10, 4.7.10, 4.8.10, 4.13.6e, 4.14.10, 4.15.10, 4.16.3b-3, 4.16.4.c, 4.17.2 (d) and 4.18.4e. These amendments also include a new section, 4.19 – Planned Business and Development Overlay Zone.: 1) Establish 14.25 feet per floor throughout all zones; 2) Increase permitted floors from 2.5 to 3 floors in Planned Travel Zone; 3) Increase the permitted number of floors from 2.5 stories to 4 stories for all permitted uses in the Planned Employment and Planned Commerce zones; 4) Establish Overlay Zone in the Planned Business and Development Zone (North Main Street area) and increase the number of permitted floors in the PBD Overlay Zone from 2.5 to 3; Zoning Map: Amend Zoning Map to establish a Planned Business Development Overlay Zone to include the following Main Street properties: 3039, 3040, 3041, 3025, Lot W-2, 3017, 3011, 2997, 3000, 2963, Lot W-10A, 2955, 2941, 2915, Lot W-14, 2952, 2944, 2928, 2934, 2900, 2875, 2865, 2855, 2851, 2847, 2839, 2833-2837, 2831 and 2838-2868; all as described in a report by the Town Manager dated November 25, 2020 and as recommended by the Ad Hoc Working Group and Town Plan and Zoning Commission. Said amendments shall be effective January 4, 2021. Motion by: Mr. McChesney Seconded by: Mr. Cavanaugh BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glastonbury Town Council hereby amends the motion to exclude all portions except the equalization of the floor heights. Result: Motion to amend the motion passed {8-1-0}, Mr. Osgood voted against. Result: Amended motion passed {8-1-0}. Mr. Osgood voted against

Renovation of Town-Owned Affordable Residence

Date : October 27th 2020

Summary : The Glastonbury Town Council spent $150,000 renovating the town own residence at 2157 Main Street.

Discussion :

Mr. Johnson explained that the building was constructed in 1910 and requires some updates. The lead bearing surfaces need to be addressed and the windows need to be removed. The Town will work with the Housing Authority and lease it as an affordable housing unit. The goal would be finish the specifications, bid the project, and install new windows, for a completion date of March 1, 2021. Mr. Niland opened the floor for public comment. With no comments, he closed the public hearing. There were no written comments submitted for the public hearing. Mr. Osgood asked for a price breakdown for the work that needs to be done. Mr. Johnson stated that the overall renovation cost will run somewhere around $125,000 to $150,000, consisting of the following components: lead abatement, installing a ductless split system, painting, and replacing 37 or 38 windows. Mr. Osgood stated that he will vote against this motion because the Housing Authority has said that a single-family option is not a cost-effective way to provide affordable housing. Instead, for this amount of money, they could potentially provide more units. He does not think this is a good allocation of resources for affordable housing. Dr. Beckett will support the motion because the town owns the house and they cannot rent out property with lead paint and 110-year-old windows which need to be replaced. However, he agrees with Mr. Osgood that, as a general rule, buying single family homes may not be a good use of resources for affordable housing. Mr. Niland agreed, as did Mr. McChesney, saying that it is a prudent move. Ms. Tanski stated that this is a unique property and a unique situation. She thinks that it was a prudent move to acquire this property at the time because of its location, adjacent to Town Hall. She thanked Mr. Johnson for his efforts in operating the house as an unofficial affordable residential property for years. She added that it does not make sense to sell the home. She also shared Mr. Osgood’s concerns that a property that cost $200,000 to buy and $150,000 to fix up is not a model of affordable housing for the Council to pursue going forward. BE IT RESOLVED, the Glastonbury Town Council hereby approves a $150,000 appropriation and transfer for improvements to the Town-owned property at 2157 Main Street from the General Fund – Unassigned Fund Balance to Capital Projects – Facilities Maintenance, as described in a report by the Town Manager dated September 18, 2020 and as recommended by the Board of Finance. Result: Motion passed {8-1-0}, with Mr. Osgood voting against.

Urge Our Community to Behave in a Calm Way Leading to Election Day

Date : October 13th 2020

Summary : The Glastonbury Town Council urges the community to remain in a calm and considerate way to support free elections in 2020.

Discussion :

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glastonbury Town Council hereby expresses support for the following statement concerning the 2020 election season: In view of recent events the Glastonbury Town Council urges our community to continue its long history of behaving in a calm and considerate manner leading to the election date of November 3 and beyond, to assure our residents an environment in which they can freely and without any fear or concern exercise their duty and vote as we have always done in Glastonbury. Citizens are as always free and are in fact encouraged to express their views in any forum without any reservation as long as they are done in a civil manner with mutual respect to other views and opinions. Ms. Tanski believes that Town residents will conduct themselves during the election in the same respectful and peaceful way that they always have. She does not believe that the Council needs to issue this statement. Mr. Osgood asked which recent event(s) triggered this statement. Mr. Gullotta stated that the recent event in Michigan is one example. Mr. Osgood finds this statement unnecessary. Mr. Cavanaugh stated that he is not an elected official to lecture voters. He also questioned the ‘recent events,’ stating that they have never had an issue with voters in Glastonbury, so he is not going to support this. Mr. Niland remarked that there is nothing objectionable in this letter. Ms. Carroll agreed with Mr. Niland that this is just a statement, not a lecture. This is a reminder that everyone needs to be their best selves during these very charged times. Mr. McChesney concurred, adding that they should try to set the tone from the top-down. Ms. LaChance is on the fence with this. While she finds nothing wrong with the statement, she would have preferred it to be more actionable. Mr. Tanski stated that, even in light of the raised tensions right now, Glastonbury has been conducting itself in a much more respectful manner than other places that have made the news nationwide. She worries that having wording that some may perceive to be condescending could be viewed as some sort of repudiation of them. Result of the motion: Motion passed {5-4-0}, with Mr. Cavanaugh, Mr. Osgood, Ms. Tanski, and Dr. Beckett voting against