ATTENDANCE: Michael Coffey, Chairman; Carvin Hillard, Richard McQuaid,
Douglas Sutton, Matthew Miklave (8:11)

OTHERS: Darlene Young, Assistant City Clerk; James Haselkamp, Personnel
Director; Mr. John Hiscock, Second Taxing District General
Manager; Hal Alvord, DPW Director

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 8:10 P.M.

** CHAIRMAN COFFEY MADE A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO CONSIDER AGENDA ITEM 5A) SUMMER JOBS: REVIEW OF ORDINANCES INVESTIGATION OF SUMMER 2005 INCIDENT.

** THE MOTION WAS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mr. Miklave arrived at 8:11 P.M.

A verbal disagreement between Chairman Coffey and Mr. Miklave ensued. Chairman Coffey warned Mr. Miklave that continued obstruction of the meeting would result in Mr. Miklave’s removal from the meeting. The verbal disagreement subsided.

SUMMER JOBS: REVIEW OF ORDINANCES SUMMER 2005 INVESTIGATION

A letter from the establishment that had been involved in the investigation was presented to the committee.

Ms. Darlene Young was invited up to answer several questions concerning the Summer 2005 investigation. She was asked about events surrounding the time prior to the incident and was asked if any measures had been taken to ensure that an incident similar to the alleged incident in 2005 would not happen again. Ms. Young also informed the Committee that she was not overseeing the program in 2005 and had not heard about the incident. She then answered all questions that were asked by the commission respectfully.

Mr. Haselkamp was invited up to answer several questions concerning his history with the Summer Jobs Program and his experience with similar incidents in other parts of the state. Mr. Haselkamp said that he felt that having the various municipalities do background checks was a positive thing but recognized that the sheer numbers could prevent this from being done. Mr. Haselkamp commented that each city handled the matter differently.

Mr. Haselkamp said that orientation was done with many of the program participants. A discussion about the Mr. Haselkamp’s participation in various past programs then followed.

Mr. Coffey gave a brief overview of the situation and asked Mr. Haselkamp how he felt the situation should have been handled. Mr. Haselkamp suggested a vendor guideline activity that would outline the types of responsibilities that the vendor has if there is an incident, notification requirements, and whether the incident should be reported to DCF. He said that he had never dealt with an issue when there was a vendor involved.

Mr. Coffey asked if there were any potential problems from a risk management point of view. Mr. Haselkamp said that those risks would always be present. Mr. McQuaid pointed out that it would be important not to scare away potential businesses from participating in the program. Mr. Haselkamp said that this could be done by creating the proper protocols so that the proper people are notified. Mr. Coffey commented that he was particularly concerned because of the sexual crimes that he had prosecuted in the past.

Mr. Hillard said that he had attended a workshop at Benjamin Franklin where the youth were instructed on the protocols for job interviews. He said that while it would be good to issue a warning to the students, but he was also cautious about hurting the program and scaring companies away.

Mr. Miklave asked Mr. Haselkamp what his understanding of the mandatory reporting obligations. Mr. Haselkamp said that that had never come up in the context of his jobs in the various municipalities; most of those activities were handled by the departments that were involved. Mr. Haselkamp said that he had spoken with Attorney Nolin about the legal concerns about whether the program was subject to reporting in this instance. Mr. Haselkamp said that Atty. Nolin indicated to him that the program was not subject to reporting in this instance. Mr. Miklave then reviewed Mr. Haselkamp’s responsibilities in his previous positions as a Personnel Director.

The discussion then moved on to mandatory reporting of incidents that occur in other municipalities.

Mr. Coffey asked if it would be considered a good practice if any future incidents reports were forwarded to the Personnel Department. Mr. Haselkamp agreed. Mr. Coffey asked if the office had any records from 2005. Mr. Haselkamp replied that he did not believe any records were in his office, but that he would double check.

It was commented that not all mandatory reports are made through the police department, even though this particular incident was. Mr. Haselkamp said that he does not encourage departments to do investigations on their own. Mr. Coffey then asked Mr. Haselkamp if it would not be good practice for the Executive branch to undertake the investigations. Mr. Haselkamp said that in the normal course of business, it would be best to have it handled by the Personnel Department. If it involves criminal conduct, the matter would likely be referred to the police.

Mr. Coffey said that the Pagano’s had been contacted and had submitted a letter as part of the record. Ms. Stark and Mr. David Watts had been invited to attend the meeting. Mr. Watts had contacted Mr. Coffey saying that he would not be able to attend. A letter was also sent to Ms. LeTournier, the former Personnel director, but there has been no reply. Former Mayor Knopp was also contacted about this issue.

Mr. Miklave stated that he had been given a statement from former Mayor Knopp about this issue because former Mayor Knopp was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Miklave then read Mr. Knopp’s statement to the Committee.

The letter gave a history of the creation of the summer jobs program, and stated that the 2005 summer jobs program was very successful. The incident under consideration was one of a very few, if not the only, placement failure out of more than 200 jobs created. Mr. Knopp stated that he had been advised of the incident at Pagano’s Seafood in the middle of July 2005 and was also told then that the employee involved had been fired. The Police Department was immediately informed and instructions that no future program participants should be sent to that particular employer.

The letter went on to say that it was hoped that the transparent efforts of some of the members to conduct a political vendetta did not damage the program. The statement also contained the observation, that if the incident had not involved an employee who had a distant relationship with the Democratic Town Chairman this would not have been an issue after two years. There was a recent unfounded accusation that Mr. Knopp’s office had violated the mandatory reporting statute, Section 17a-101 of the General Statutes. The office had performed all of the legal reporting duties under the statutes by informing the Norwalk Police Department of the incident.

Mr. Knopp’s letter continued with the statement that the City would be better served by the Committee’s efforts to reverse the shirking of the summer jobs program as has occurred recently. During the recent investigation into the Norwalk Fire Department, Mr. Knopp felt that members of that Committee treated him in a rude, unprofessional and uncivil manner. Therefore, Mr. Knopp sent a statement to the Committee rather than attending.

Mr. Coffey said that it was unfortunately that Mr. Knopp had chosen not to attend, since the focus of the issue was to make the program safer for the participants. He then thanked Mr. Miklave for delivering the statement and Mr. Knopp for taking the time to write it.

Mr. McQuaid said that frequently when issues like this come up in committees, things turn political. Mr. McQuaid said that he did not have a political agenda for this issue and the instance that the Council is at fault and referencing the issue to other national events is an insult.

Mr. Coffey said that he would feel more comfortable filing a report. He commented that when the directions to inform Chief Rilling about the incident was given, no copy of this has been found in the City records. Mr. Coffey said that he did not even know if a DCF report was filed.

Mr. Sutton said that he was in favor of moving the program forward in as positive a manner as possible and suggested the Committee consult with the Board of Education to see how they handle incidents like this since teachers, guidance counselors and social workers at the schools are mandatory reporters. Mr. Coffey agreed with this. Mr. McQuaid said that there is a protocol that has to be followed in the school systems. While this was a serious incident, Mr. McQuaid said, from here on forward, the Committee should look at improving the program.

Mr. Coffey said that he would be asking the Corporation Counsel to check with the Connecticut Council of Municipalities (CCM) for any procedures or ordinances that other cities may have in place. He then said he would report back to the Committee about this.

Mr. Hillard pointed out that the Mayor’s Office did call the police when the incident happened, which is proved by the existence of the police report. He also expressed his concern whether the Ordinance Committee was the proper venue for this issue because he felt it might be a public safety issue. Mr. Hillard said that there could be a perception by the former Mayor that there might be political reasons for this. Mr. Hillard said that he was not saying that he agreed with this, but that he understood Mr. Knopp’s view. It is important to be careful how the matter is handled. Mr. Hillard said that he would like to see the Summer Youth Program continue and to expand if possible.

Mr. Coffey commented that he had been on the Council since 2003 and did not know of any Council Member who knew about this incident until recently. He also mentioned that showing a child some pornography was often the first step to other sexual abuse. Mr. Coffey said that this issue was about protecting the participants in the Summer Youth program and not about a political vendetta.

Mr. Miklave said that he did not agree with everything that was in Mr. Knopp’s letter, but understands the anger and frustration reflected in that letter due to the actions of the Council over the last eighteen months. Mr., Miklave pointed out that the recent investigation of the Fire Department has been lengthy. He also mentioned the recent ethics complaint currently being investigated. Mr. Miklave said that he agreed with Mr. Sutton and Mr. McQuaid. It was important to remember that the issue is a business with a rogue employee who committed this act. The allegations before the Committee are unproven and two years old. Now the employer, who terminated that employee and fully cooperated with the Police Department, now is being asked to come before the Committee for further investigation. This will doubtlessly have an impact on the program since employers will have the possibility of being called before the Committee years after an incident. Mr. Miklave pointed out that the Police Department is far more skilled in investigating these issues than any Council members. He said that he did not have a problem with appropriately looking at incidents to see what can be learned from them.
RECESS

Mr. Coffey announced a recess at 9:35 p.m. The Committee reconvened at 9:50 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Coffey then called the public hearing on the Proposed Revision of Chapter 96 – Excavations and Encroachments in the Public Streets and Grounds to order at 9:50 p.m.

Proposed Revision of Chapter 96 – Excavations and Encroachments in the Public Streets and Grounds.

Mr. John Hiscock, the General Manager of the Second Taxing District addressed the Committee regarding Proposed Revision of Chapter 96, 1-22 – Streets Excavations. He stated that South Norwalk Electric supports the efforts of the City and the Public Works Department to improve the conditions of the public streets and highways. SNEW attempts to coordinate its work with DPW in order to avoid needless destruction of newly paved and reconstructed roadways when provide sufficient advance notice by DPW by altering its scheduled work to complete work in advance where paving is scheduled to take place.

The proposed ordinance suggests a twenty-four month moratorium on work newly constructed or recently paved streets. Mr. Hiscock said that while well intended, this proposal will cause confusion and delays in utility repairs and not achieve the intended goals. The vast majority of SNEWs work is repairing damaged or leaking electrical or water structures on an emergency basis. Delaying repairs for even a short period of time would often result in additional damages to both public and private property. SNEW is obligated by multiple state agencies to immediately repair the infrastructure to the requirements of the Department of Health Services, the Department of Environmental Protection, and other State agencies. Delays of repairs could result in both public health emergencies related to either the water or the electrical systems.

SNEW has the following specific comments as they relate to the proposed changes.

96-2c New Section - Permit Required Exception – SNEW can for work with that it institutes through their Capital budget for routine replacement of their existing facilities meet the twenty four month moratorium as outlined in Section 96-2c. However, very little of SNEW’s work in public streets and highways is of a preplanned nature. Virtually all of its work is for facilities, which have failed without prior warning. Some of SNEW’s work relates to development projects, which are outside the control of SNEW. In these cases, SNEW will inform the parties that it is unable to perform the requested services to accommodate their project based on this section of the proposed ordinance if adopted as written. SNEW believes that if this ordinance change will serve to dampen development in the City and result in difficulty and dissatisfaction between the property owners and the City.

Section 96-3b – Permit Applications. SNEW agrees that the appropriate plans and specifications should be provided to DPW prior to any planned work or restoration of work performed due to emergency repair. DPW should not be permitted to leverage the specifications requirement to be added to Section B to require utilities to make repairs to street repairs adjacent to utility work that is not related to that utility work. This should be the responsibility of the City of Norwalk.

Section 96-7d – Bond Requirements. A statement of solvency requirement for a Taxing District is a misapplication of the statutes and should not be included in the ordinance.
Section 96-7d should not be amended to include taxing districts. A statement of solvency is governed by Section 16-229 and Section 16-230 of the Connecticut General Statutes in a Section titled Public Service Companies in a section titled Public Utility Control. A definition of the Public Service Company shows that the Second Taxing District is not a public service company by definition. Section 16-229 and Section 16-230 therefore do not apply to the taxing districts and can not be included in the ordinance. A simple reading of Section 16-230 shows that a financial requirements in order to obtain from the Secretary of State a certificate of solvency is merely an attestation by the company that the combined paid in capital and surplus of the company is not less than half a million dollars. $500,000 would not be a barrier to any of three taxing districts in Norwalk. Section 16-230 speaks to negligence in public highway work. It would require Norwalk to prove negligence and the utility would have sufficient assets to pay for the damages.
Therefore, the Second Taxing District believes that requiring a statement of solvency would afford the City no additional protection.

Section 96-10 – Emergency Excavations and Encroachments. The proposed ordinance as written eliminates the annual emergency blanket excavation permit and makes each excavation an individual permit. This change will result in a substantial number of permits being issued. SNEW has no objection to this other than the additional clerical and administrative work required by both the utility and DPW to comply. In Section 96-10a the word “blanket” should be removed to make the draft consistent. The bulk of SNEWs emergency permits would most likely be issued not under Section 96-10a but under subsection b, where SNEW will be unable to submit an application for emergency permit due to the nature of the repairs and the timing. This will result in most of the permits being obtained verbally under section B with subsequent follow up. As a practical matter, SNEW would like to know who to obtain verbal permission from DPW when working nights or weekends. SNEW further asserts that denial of such permission by DPW under any emergency circumstances in which SNEW is working to protect the public health and welfare would be inappropriate.

In conclusion, SNEW believes that DPW could provide longer term protection of the paved streets by scrupulously enforced appropriate backfill and compaction requirements similar to those of the State of Connecticut Form 816, which is the standard specification for roadway, bridges and other construction. The Second Taxing District has suffered innumerable breakages and repairs due to improper compaction on City sewer projects. SNEW has also experience a rash of water main breaks following construction. SNEW has repeatedly complained in writing to DPW about these issues. SNEW hopes that the current director will move to solve the problem with the District’s facilities. SNEW will support any appropriate effort by the Department of Public Works to improve the conditions of public highways in the City of Norwalk. SNEW wishes to be a good citizen and will work towards that. Some sections of this ordinance should be reworded.

Mr. Hiscock thanked the Committee for listening and said that he would answer any questions that the Committee might have. There were no questions from the Committee.

Mr. Alvord then came forward and explained that DPW has implemented some monthly reviews with all of the utility companies and the taxing districts that are routinely worked with for excavation permits. The intent is to follow up on open permits, to insure that everyone’s needs are being met and to try to coordinate DPW’s capital projects with the capital projects of the utility companies. Some City capital projects have been altered to accommodate capital projects for the utilities and taxing districts. The five-year paving program has been shared and is also posted on the web site. There is no intention of creating an legal obstacle for those who excavate the streets.

The utility companies and contractors destroy more city streets than any other single factor. By statute, utility companies have a right to municipal rights of way. There is an understanding that it would be an ungainly burden for a water company to have to get easements through every private property to remove a water main or serve new customers. Based on that knowledge, legislatures across all fifty states, have given the utilities the right to be in the public right of way. By the same statues, the municipality that owns the right of way, the right to establish the criteria within which utility companies and contractors have to work when excavation of city streets is done. The intent of this proposed change is to protect the good streets that Norwalk has as long as possible. Moratoriums do help. Exceptions are made from time to time because of emergencies. Developers and contractors often ask when the last time the street was paved and schedule their work accordingly.

The emergencies will result in more permits. There have been times when streets have been excavated under the blanket emergency concept without an actual emergency. This has been verified by querying the “Call Before You Dig” database. A number of excavations were done by a number of organizations for which there was no permit or even knowledge of projects. Mr. Alvord said that this was simply an approach to verify when an emergency does occur, that it is an emergency. There are procedures in place for this both during regular business hours and after business hours with an on call supervisor seven days a week, 365 days a year.

The business about the solvency statement is simply an opportunity to give the taxing districts the alternatives to posting a blanket bond. This gives them a choice. So, if they don’t care, the company will provide a statement of solvency, like Yankee Gas has. Mr. Alvord said that he agreed with Mr. Hiscock that the definition of a public service company does not specifically include taxing districts. That is why it was included in the ordinance to give the taxing districts options. They can either provide a blanket bond or they can provide a statement of solvency.

Mr. Miklave asked if DPW had developed the proposed ordinance. Mr. Alvord confirmed that it did. He asked if Corporation Counsel had looked at this. Mr. Alvord said that he had not asked them specifically for feedback but provided it to them for review before it came to the Ordinance Committee. Mr. Miklave said that Mr. Hiscock’s point about development might be something Mr. Alvord might want to consult with Redevelopment on this.

Mr. Hillard asked if there was any particular discussion of this proposed ordinance with the taxing districts at the monthly DPW meetings. Mr. Alvord said he and Mr. Hiscock have lunch together on a quarterly basis. When the First District had a manager, Mr. Alvord said he also met with him. Mr. Alvord said that he had reviewed the proposed revisions with all the firms. Mr. Alvord said that he had informed Mr. Hiscock of the time of the public hearing because Mr. Alvord knew there would be a difference of opinion. Mr. Alvord said he understand the concerns of the contractors since he was one before coming to work for the City. However, now he is obligated to protect the interests and the infrastructures of the City as much as possible. Mr. Alvord said that he believed that there would be ample opportunity for the City and the various firms to work together to find a way to address the capital needs and the repair needs of everyone involved.

Mr. Hillard thanked Mr. Alvord for this explanation but said that he would like to see what Corporation Counsel’s opinion on this.

Mr. Coffey asked what the potential cost savings would be from enacting this proposal. Mr. Coffey said that he likes to err on the side of caution but tempers this with financial prudence. Mr. Alvord said that he could not put a dollar figure on it, but said that if the City was ever going to improve the streets, based on today’s prices, the City must invest at least 5 million dollars a year in road repaving. Typically, the budget allows for about 2.5 million. The average condition of the roads continues to decline. A fairly structured approach is being used to measure and prioritize the streets for repaving with a pavement condition index (PCI). 25% of the streets are assessed each year to insure that no PCI is older than three years. This is combined with traffic volume. The average PCI last year was 75. This year the PCI is 74. This is after investing 2.5 million in road repaving. The coming fiscal year, 2.8 million invested in road repaving, but there will be less repaving than last year because the price of asphalt increased 31%. Mr. Alvord anticipates that even after next year’s repaving the average PCI in the City will be roughly 72. While Mr. Alvord reiterated that he could not put a dollar figure on this, he could suggest that DPW was trying to hold back the decline of the average streets of the city and this proposal will help do that.

Mr. McQuaid also pointed out that this also is inconvenient to the residents. Mr. McQuaid said that he was glad that the dialogue was there. He said that he would like to see the proposal go to Corporation Counsel with input from both gentlemen.

Mr. Alvord said that his only question was if there was an expected process. This proposed revision had taken about eight months. The proposal has been seen by Corporation Counsel at least three times. He then asked if it was the expectation of the Committee that when a proposed code revision comes in and is given to Corporation Counsel, when the item reaches the agenda, there is a Corporation Counsel opinion attached to it.

Mr. McQuaid said that this was a public hearing where the Committee was receiving public input and he would like to see that this goes forward to Corporation Counsel to put it in the language that is needed. Mr. Coffey commented that the proposal has already gone to Corporation Counsel. If it goes back to the Corporation Counsel, Mr. Coffey said that a second public hearing might be required. A discussion about this followed.

Mr. Coffey said that he would then close the hearing and asked if there were any additional members of the public who wished to speak. No one responded. Mr. Coffey asked again. Hearing none, Mr. Coffey closed the public hearing at 10:17 p.m.

Mr. Coffey then said that if the Committee wished to send the proposal back to Corporation Counsel along with the SNEW comments and requesting a opinion from Corporation Counsel. This item will be included on the next month’s agenda under Old Business.

Mr. Alvord asked for clarification as to whether an opinion from Corporation Counsel was needed before submitting a proposed ordinance change to the Ordinance Committee.

Mr. Miklave said that the better process might be to circulate a draft of the proposed ordinance to the affected department heads and Corporation Counsel and ask them for a formal review in reference to a scheduled public hearing. He said that it is important that Corporation Counsel feels comfortable with the proposals so there are no obvious mistakes in the proposals. Once the department heads have made their commentaries, then public discussion can be opened with a document for reference. The details commentary presented tonight, Mr. Miklave believed was exceptionally helpful.

Mr. Coffey commented that there had been previous discussions and this is why this ordinance was scheduled for a public hearing. Mr. Coffey also said that since Mr. Alvord has come to DPW, the department has been extremely professional and come to Mr. Coffey with the ideas and proposed changes to the ordinances. Typically, it has been sent to Corporation Counsel’s office and typically Mr. Alvord has already discussed this with Corporation Counsel to some degree. This has been the process for the past three and a half years.

Mr. Hillard said that while he agreed, he felt it was also appropriate if the Committee felt there was information that needed to be considered, that the Committee refer it to the Corporation Counsel. If there is additional information, it is okay to slow down the process. Mr. Alvord said that this was either the fourth or fifth time he has attended an Ordinance Committee meeting regarding this proposal.

Mr. Miklave said that he has recently become aware that Corporation Counsel office needs a very specific request in order to respond to it appropriately. Therefore it is incumbent for the Committee to ask for a written review and a communication to the Committee about the ordinance. Mr. Miklave said that a written request to the various departments might expedite the process.

Mr. Coffey said that the proposed ordinance will be sent back to Corporation Counsel for a formal written review. Mr. Miklave also said that he would like the various departments notified. Mr. Coffey said that he would coordinate this with Mr. Alvord. Mr. Alvord said that his department had created a cover sheet for various department and he could implement it. This was agreeable to all. Mr. Coffey stated that this item will be added to the agenda under Old Business next month.

Tax Relief for Darien Volunteer Emergency Workers; Amend Code Section 103 to permit Darien to Implement such a Program for Norwalk Residents to be paid for by the Town of Darien

Mr. Coffey also announced that the Tax Relief for Darien Volunteer Emergency Workers; Amend Code Section 103 to permit Darien to Implement such a Program for Norwalk Residents to be paid for by the Town of Darien would be put on next month’s agenda to allow for a review of the proposal.

Mr. Coffey said that he had handed out some ordinances from the State of New Jersey and the City of Wilmington, Delaware for Project Labor agreements. CCM was not able to locate any ordinances in their files. Mr. Coffey said that there were some responses to employer policies, which he will hand out next month. He also was able to obtain the City of New Haven’s ordinance for the Project Work agreement.

** MR. MIKLAVE MOVED TO AMEND THE AGENDA UNDER ITEM 4 – OLD BUSINESS TO ADD THE PROPOSED ETHICS ORDINANCE.

Mr. Miklave said that he would like to add this to the agenda and also conduct a public hearing. Mr. Coffey said that he would like to update the Committee about where the Ethics Ordinance was.
RECESS

Mr. Coffey announced a five-minute recess at 10:20 p.m. The Committee reconvened at 10:25 p.m.

** THE MOTION TO AMEND THE AGENDA UNDER ITEM 4 – OLD BUSINESS TO ADD THE PROPOSED ETHICS ORDINANCE PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURNMENT

** MR. COFFEY MOVED TO ADJOURN.

Mr. Miklave said that he wished to debate the motion to adjourn and that he believed sent this to a public hearing. He then asked Mr. Coffey to move the question.

** THE MOTION TO ADJOURN FAILED WITH ONE IN FAVOR (MCQUAID) AND THREE AGAINST (MIKLAVE, HILLARD AND SUTTON).

Mr. Miklave said that he wished to discuss having a public hearing on the Ethics Ordinance. Mr. Coffey said that the Committee did not have an updated Ethics Ordinance and he did not understand. Mr. Miklave said that no one had sent the Committee members an updated version. Mr. Miklave said that he had an update version from April 19th. Mr. Coffey said that there was a proposed ordinance after that. Mr. Miklave said that it was never sent to the Council from Corporation Counsel. Mr. Coffey repeated that there was another revision. Mr. Miklave said that he had never received the latest update. Mr. Coffey said that it was on the Ethics Committee agenda. Mr. Hillard said that he knew that people wanted a hearing on the Ethics Ordinance. Mr. Miklave said that he wanted to be sure that proposed public hearing over the revised Ethics Ordinance was under discussion.

** MR. COFFEY MOVED TO SEND THE REVISED ETHICS ORDINANCE TO A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE ORDINANCE COMMITTEE.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

** MR. COFFEY MOVED TO ADJOURN.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sharon L. Soltes
Telesco Secretarial Service

Back to Previous Page	Back to Home Page