A Common Council Meeting In Chapters

(Russell Library director Arthur Meyers, Cheryl Jackson and Elizabeth Santangelo, all contributors to the Community Conversations project, accept recognition from Mayor Sebastian Giuliano and the Middletown Common Council.)

It was with no small amount of dread that all involved entered Common Council chambers on Monday evening.  Looming over the evening was an ongoing struggle between the Republican executive (Mayor) and Democratic-majority legislative (Common Council) branches, a proposal to create a million-dollar parking lot downtown with exactly no new spaces, and an agenda that contained 52 proposed resolutions and ordinances ("one for every week of the year," said Council member Grady Faulkner).

Who's the boss?

Of course, the real boss is Mr. Bruce Springsteen, but he was nowhere near Council Chambers when the meeting began. And the meeting began as it would end, with a heated debate about who should be making financial decisions in the city.




During the meeting before the meeting (Questions For Directors), Council member Vinnie Loffredo led the charge by calling City Director of Finance Carl Erlacher and questioned him about the release of reserve funds of 10% to city departments for utilization in their operating budgets.  That money, according to a Common Council resolution, was supposed to have been left in reserve until released by the Common Council.

Erlacher said he understood the resolution but released the money to city departments under the direction of the mayor, and after seeking advice from the acting city attorney Tim Lynch.

"This resolution seems pretty clear to me," Loffredo said.  "The language of this resolution is so uncomplicated.  You need the assistance of the City Attorney?"

Erlacher left the podium chastened, and Lynch was called to task by majority leader Thomas Serra and by Loffredo about the 10% reserve, and about filling city positions during a job freeze declared by another Common Council resolution.

Lynch and the council members debated the authority of the mayor, and when a 10% reserve might be within the realm of council legislation (when it is set aside to prevent end-of-year catch-up spending).

For the record, the questions about the 10% set-aside were technically illegal since the resolution addressing that set-aside was dropped (leaving only 51 resolutions and ordinances) from the official council agenda.  Questions to Directors is designed to address only those items on the agenda.

The Questions to Directors ended nearly a half hour over time, at which point the regular Common Council meeting got underway in earnest.

Generous to an Asphalt 


The meeting got underway on a positive note as the Council gave bi-partisan support to community members who helped organize the Community Conversations on inauguration day last year.

Immediately following Community members came to the podium to discuss the proposed renovation of the Mellili Plaza parking lot.  The proposal calls for resurfacing the lot, connecting it to the lower city hall lot, and adding lighting, security cameras, drainage to separators to remove contaminants before water flows to the river, new trees to replace mature trees, bike parking and a ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) access to the tunnel which leads from the lot to the riverside.

Calvin Price represented the Downtown Business District with an enthusiastic endorsement of the upgraded lot.  He was joined by local merchants and business owners including Craig Martin of Reality Interactive, who endorsed the upgrade, but asked the Council to consider the "cost and character" of the project.

On the other side of the argument, community members like John Hall reluctantly accepted the fact tha the plan for the new lot was expected to pass and that the Council would approve the upgrade.  Resigned to the change, Hall said it was only acceptable if the several compromises proposed by community members were attached, including environmental and aesthetic compromises.  Jennifer Saines urged the Council to reject the plan.

"It's a perverse misuse of a city asset," Saines said of the lot which she noted was prime river-view real estate.

After some debate, during which several Council member called the rarely used city hall lot "dark" and "dangerous" (full disclosure: I park there during most city hall meetings and tonight I realized that the lighting in the lot is actually brighter than in my own living room - see photo), the Council passed funding of the lot, and the connected repaving of Industrial Park Road.  Council members amended the resolution to recommend adapting of all changes suggested by community members to improve the environmental and aesthetic appeal of the lot.

Council member David Bauer objected to the Melilli project on financial grounds.

"The only person accountable is the taxpayer," he said.  "They will have to pay the principle and interest on this project."


Parks and No Recreation

The bulk of resolutions before the Council Monday came from the Ordinance Review Committee via the Parks and Recreation Department after nearly three years of considering ordinances governing fees and activities in city parks.

Members of the community questioned the language in some of the ordinances which banned horse back riding, dirt bike riding, political rallies and playing (yes, playing) in the parks.  Several of the questionable ordinances were sent back to the Ordinance Review Committee and the Parks and Rec Commission for further study.  The remaining 30-aught ordinances were passed without debate.

Police Procedural

Two resolutions involving police and police action were passed after some discussion.  Both were eventually passed to satisfy the need in the city to adhere to state statute.

One resolution codified the hiring of private-duty police to handle traffic when construction on city streets interrupts the flow of traffic.  The other resolution gives citizens a venue for appeal if they want to question a traffic regulation.

The meeting ended in a session called Questions for Directors Not on the Agenda, when Acting Police Chief Patrick McMahon appeared to explain to the Common Council why he promoted two acting sergeants to the force.

McMahon explained that his request for the additional sergeants was to beef up supervision for a force which he calls "very green" as a result of retirements and turnover.  He explained that the Personnel Committee and the Public Safety Committee rejected his requests for permanent positions, but that after reporting back to the mayor, and receiving approval, he went ahead with the promotions.

McMahon's actions were questioned by Loffredo and Council members James Streeto and Ron Klattenberg.  In the end, McMahon asserted his authority to make the promotions, but apologized for not communicating clearly with committee chairs, and with the Common Council about his intent.