What’s the big deal? Mike and Vicky are attempting to force a primary for the Town Committee seats which registrar Mary Mourey estimates will costs us, the taxpayers, $5,000. This is definitely taxpayer abuse.

District 7 consists of somewhere between 500 and 600 Republican electors. We can expect a turnout of 50 to 100 voters if this primary goes ahead. That’s a per voter cost to the town of $50 to $100.  My recommendation to Mike & Vicky, take it as a learning experience. Join the district committee if you are still interested and move on.

From the article:

Two members of the Republican Town Committee who said they felt unfairly ousted from their membership are petitioning for a primary to regain the seatsthey lost in the town’s 7th district.

Michael Brinius and his wife, Victoria Gaudette Brinius, were ousted during last week’s Republican caucus. Seventh district Republicans have 10 seats on the town committee, and the Briniuses found themselves finishing 11th and 12th in the voting.

Also:

Town Chairman Paul Roczynski said he believes Kronen and other Republicans have been planning to overtake the committee for some time now. When officer elections to the committee take place in March, Roczynski expects a challenge, and in all likelihood, he said, the opposition is likely to seize control of the party.

As always, if you are interested in becoming involved I’d be glad to assist you with joining the RTC. Even in full districts you can be a member of the individual district committee.

Rob Simmons who is the establishment candidate in the race on the Republican side has been traveling the state with a tea bag in his pocket claiming it as his Tea Party credentials. Newsflash Mr. Simmons, a tea bag doesn’t make you a good candidate. Principle does. While Mr. Simmons has a tea bag, Schiff had multiple well known Tea Party folks milling about in the crowd. It appears that although Simmons wants to be the Tea Party candidate Mr. Schiff actually is.

Word is that Schiff is also well on his way to receiving the endorsement of the Independence Caucus, a coalition of various groups formed to vet candidates for office. These are interesting times and it will be interesting to see how many NY-23s pop up across the country in response to establishment GOP candidate choices.

The biggest wild card in this race is still Chris Dodd. Will he stay in? More and more names are coming out opining that Chris ought to retire. It just may happen.

Video: Schiff speech @ HQ Opening & Questions

Picture Slide Show

Despite his failure to attend his alter ego Odd Dodd attended riding in the back of a Dump Dodd pickup. Check out the picture slide show and videos of the rally and an interview with Merrick Alpert. If CT Democrats have any sense they will put Merrick in Dodd’s place on the ticket. I don’t agree with Merrick beyond Term Limits, but he is still a better choice than Dodd.

Merrick Alpert, Dodd’s Democratic challenger for the Senate, showed up at the Dump Dodd Rally. See what he is about.

The DPUC is holding a hearing today at 11AM as part of its investigation into East Hartford Community Television’s ability to continue its responsibility for Community Access Operations.

Documents on the DPUC website indicate that EHCT sought non-profit status from the IRS in June and may have paid over $100,000 in back taxes and fines with rate payer money effectively wiping out two years of Comcast funding for the station.

The investigation docket is full of interesting information and can be found here:
It looks like you may need to use Internet Explorer for the docket system.

http://www.dpuc.state.ct.us/dockcurr.nsf/(Web+Main+View/All+Dockets)?OpenView&StartKey=09-07-25

According to the DPUC investigation schedule a decision on EHCT should come at the end of February.

I also noticed a letter in the Gazette just after the election from a woman who seemed afraid East Hartford would lose its cable access station. Rest assured, regardless of what happens to EHCT, East Hartford will still have a cable access station. If the DPUC determines EHCT is not fit to operate the station any longer someone else will be put in their place.

My big problems:

1. Operating 20 years claiming non-profit status when they were not. That is fraud and has serious implications for 20 years of people who have used donations to EHCT to offset their tax liabilities.

2. Banking  almost a million bucks. The EHCT stations doesn’t have a huge budget. According to the financial reports they get 16K from the Town and a little over 50K from Comcast through ratepayer subsidy. Considering the quality of the equipment, technological capacity and facilities of EHCT it is apparent that the management of EHCT has completely failed to maintain a modern public access station. It’s more a government broadcast station in its current form.

3. 128,000 in Government Fees & Taxes paid in 2009. Poor management of the station has cost us, the ratepayers and taxpayers, 2.5 years of our ratepayer contributions to the station to correct their 20 year mistake. Nobody knows if more is coming.

4. EHCT is using past Mayor Robert DeCresenzo as its attorney. I have a big problem with the incestuous political relationships in this town. With thousands of attorneys in CT why are the same ones involved in all town connected business.

5. Commingling of funds with the Town. Despite EHCT being its own entity, and according to the Mayor, separate from the Town it appears that money is flowing into and out of Town accounts on EHCT’s behalf. Including the paycheck for EHCT’s sole employee, Irene Cone. A company with an 800K bank account ought to be able to manage its own finances.

6. To date EHCT has not had any detailed financial audit conducted and has actively attempted to dodge DPUC demands for an audit.

EHCT has submitted a plan to bring the station up to modern standards, albeit in the same location. They have also sought to rectify the non-profit issue, albeit after the fact and at great expense to you and I. If I were a DPUC commissioner I am not sure I could excuse the past 20 years in light of the recent progress.  I don’t know the people involved in EHCT and I’m sure they are nice people, but I’m skeptical that after 20 years of mismanagement they can turn on a dime and properly run the station. I’d likely take action against EHCT and put the station in fresh hands.

I noticed there was one truck, with a driver, one vacuum operator, three rakers and two supervisors in town pickups. 7 people working on a Saturday, presumably at time and a half. I also noticed it took the crew about 3-4 minutes per house to do my street.

Looking through the budget I see $14,200 for leaf pickup overtime and $19,000 for leaf pickup equipment repair overtime.

Based on an hourly wage of $13.75 I figure it costs us about $96 dollars an hour in labor during the week and $144 dollars an hour on the weekend. Assuming the 16,000 households which get trash service get leaf pickup as well I figure there must be about 900 hours of work with 85% of it occurring during the normal work week and the remaining 15% on Saturdays.  That works out to be about $73,440 in standard labor and $19,440 in overtime labor for a labor cost of $92,880 or a little bit less than $6 per household served.

Add to this the cost of the trucks, fuel and maintenance and I’d bet we are at $12 per household for leaf service with a single pickup.

Is this a good deal? Considering that the leaf pickup services that have sprung up in West Hartford and already existing in other towns cost between $25 and $50 for curbside pickup I’d say we are getting a pretty good deal.

Perhaps there is room for improvement however. Are two pickup driving supervisors (or any for that matter) really necessary? Can we cut the rakers back from 3 to 2? It appeared no more than two could efficiently direct the leaves to the vacuum anyway.

I noticed something looking through county tax bills from other states. It appears to be pretty common for the tax bills to be broken out so that the full range of costs that make up the total tax bill are shown instead of just the gross total. Perhaps it would be helpful to the taxpayers of East Hartford if we got a tax statement with our bill showing us what exactly we are paying for by general program. Leaf pickup, snow removal, road maintenance, schools, town government. There would be two benefits, first the citizenry would have a clearer understanding of where 11% of their gross income is going and second, our town officials would have a better handle on the real costs of the specific parts of town spending. I don’t believe any of these things are specifically broken out currently other than by budget account which doesn’t provide an accurate picture of the costs of each town service.

I have been trying to post this for two weeks and finally got it up. Blip.tv was not loving this video and kept breaking it off around 20 minutes.

This is the swearing in of our newly elected officials. The Town Council selects a Chairman and names the Majority and Minority leaders as well. There are no surprises.

The sound is a bit better because I used a wireless mic placed next to the speaker instead of the in camera mic. The Mayor afterward asked me not to use the wireless mic because she felt it was an invasion of privacy. I’m not sure whether I’ll respect that request in the future, it is after all a public chamber with no expectation of privacy and it is common for the reporters to place their tape and digital audio recorders on the same window sill.

–
November 18, 2009 at 10:29 am by Steve McGough

We need to move fast! We’re supporting the 192nd MP Battalion from Connecticut by collecting snacks, food, and hygiene items because there is always a need for those items.  But, since things are relatively well established over there, our emphasis is bringing the holidays to our deployed troops!

We would love things like decorations, games, DVDs, cards of well wishes, cards or items made by children. We’re looking for fund stuff to package up and deliver to Connecticut’s 192nd Military Police Battalion and other service men and women with family in Connecticut and all across the United States.

But we need to move fast! To ensure delivery to our troops overseas, we need to make a big push over the next 72 hours!

Update: Fitzgerald’s Fine Foods in Simsbury is now a drop-off point and makes it easy to donate. Bring them $10 or $20 and they will put together care packages for you! (See their address below)

We will primarily be sending to the 192nd Military Police Battalion out of Connecticut, but the more stuff we get, the more troops we will be able to add to our list. If you have a soldier’s address you would like us to add to our list, or have any questions about the drive, contact us using the form below and our organizer extraordinaire Mel will get back to you as soon as possible.

What are we looking to send?

First off, you would be surprised how a simple note or card of thanks from a stranger boosts the morale and spirits of a soldier. Include them with your donations! Note: We’re also collecting holiday cards for the families here on the home front.

We are unable to take cash (except at Fitzgerald’s), but we could use small packing boxes and rolls of clear shipping tape. Here’s a list of suggested items.

• iTunes Gift Cards
• Christmas and Holiday Cards – even just notes of well-wishes
• Double-stuffed Oreos
• Holiday decorations
• Board Games
• Chap Stick
• Deoderant
• Beef Jerky
• Trail Mix & Craisins Trail Mix
• Gatorade
• Jelly Beans
• CDs and DVDs
• Hot Chocolate
• Hot Apple Cider
• Bug Repellent
• Battery Operated Fans
• Wet Wipes
• Foot Powder
• Sunblock

A note about food: Chocolate this time of year is OK, but you never know how long these packages can be sitting outside in the sun awaiting final delivery. Things in tin or strong type containers always fair better in travel. When purchasing things like mac and cheese, remember items such as butter and milk are not available. Things that only need water added are best. Microwavable items are fine.

Remember, we are unable to send pork, adult reading material, or alcohol.

In this drive, we are not accepting homemade baked goods, but  there is a “Cookies for the Troops” drive held by the Glastonbury VFW at South Congregational Church, 1301 Forbes St., East Hartford on December 6, 2009 from 1 to 3 pm. For more information call (860) 690-2845.

Drop off locations

Fitzgerald’s Fine Foods – Map & directions
710 Hopmeadow Street
Simsbury, CT 06070
http://fitzgeraldsfoods.com
(860) 658-2271

Fitzgerald’s is a drop-off location, plus they are taking your cash donations of $10 or $20 and building out the care packages for you! Making it easy in the Valley!

Kamco New England – Map & directions
179 Burnham Street
East Hartford, Conn.
http://kamconewengland.com/
Hours: Mon-Fri 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.
When you walk in, ask for Fast Eddie (Mel’s Dad) and be sure to give him a hard time. Kamco has always been a strong ally in supporting our fine men and women in uniform.

Scott’s Orchard and Nursery – Map & directions
1838 New London Tnpk
Glastonbury, Conn.
http://scottsorchardandnursey.com
Hours: 7 days, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Mel works here, if you’re looking to avoid me I’m not there on Monday and Wednesdays, most other days I am there. Christmas trees will be arriving soon, can you believe it? The Scott family has a long tradition of charitable generosity and are strong supporters of our troops.

Zest – Map & directions
167 Tolland Stage Rd (Rt 74)
Tolland, Conn.
http://www.zestofct.com
Tuesday-Friday 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Wednesday-Thursday 5 to 9 p.m.
Friday-Saturday 5 to 9:30 p.m.
Saturday 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.

Zest is owned by Carrie Landry, Mel’s cousin. Fabulous food if you have yet to stop in and she is now taking orders for yummy Thanksgiving side dishes. You may have heard her with Ray as a featured Restaurant of the Week earlier in the year or seen her on Better Connecticut. She is proud to be a drop-off location for our Troops this holiday season!

NAPA in Canton – Map & directions
220 Albany Tpke # 11
in the Canton Village
Canton, Conn.
(860) 693-0777
Monday-Friday 7 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Saturday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The Canton NAPA is owned by Gary Barnes and Brian Kelley.  The Barnes family has two sons currently serving in the Army and is excited to help out. Ensure you thank the family when you stop by!

Well Ally Bank, why are you holding out on us? Ally Bank is actually GMAC Bank. GMAC Bank is better known as the troubled financing arm of GM, or Government Motors. Back in the end of 2008 GMAC was given special government hand holding to convert itself into a federal bank and thereby become eligible for the TARP bailout funds, which it ate from hungrily. In fact GMAC Bank, or ALLY as they now call themselves sucked up over 12 billion in taxpayer dollars. Now they are using that money to re-brand themselves and dump their GM badge and attempting to leverage honest, non-government funded banks out of the market using our 12 billion dollars to subsidize unsustainable returns which are about twice what banks who aren’t burning taxpayer dollars can pay.

Sure I can get a better rate at Ally Bank, but I can’t get honesty and I couldn’t sleep well at night knowing I am doing business with thieves and cheats. Give back our money GMAC Bank err… Ally and leave the market alone. You’ve already manipulated our financial house into ruin.

I received notice from the FOI commission that a final decision will be made on the complaint on December 2nd. As I expected the the proposed decision finds that the Real Estate Committee did hold illegal secret meetings on May 14th and 19th and failed to post the minutes of the May 14th meeting. As I also expected the decision will not void the meetings on the 14th & 19th. Perhaps I could have pressed for that a bit more strongly by filing a written brief following the hearing, but in light of the way business is conducted in Town Hall, and reflecting on the statements made by the Town’s legal representation at the hearing that the Real Estate meeting on the 14th didn’t matter, I felt that particular piece of fruit was not worth climbing for.

Here is the proposed decision.

FOI Proposed Decision

The meeting, video below, went as expected with a couple notable bits. First, despite the Republicans voting unanimously against this deal back in June all three voted in favor of the deal at this special meeting.

The next interesting bit pertains to our town legal counsel Richard Gentile. I am becoming increasingly concerned with the opinions that are coming from him. Mr. Gentile changed his position on 8-137 to agree with my interpretation of the law, which is that the Redevelopment Agency may not sell a piece of property for less than its use value, even if the Council approves it. Mr. Gentile then went on to give a wholly unqualified opinion of the current use value of the property to justify the sale price to New Samaritan. All the Redevelopment Agency needs to do to comply with the law is get a qualified opinion of the current use value from a licensed commercial appraiser. If it’s 50K or below, great. If not, get what the taxpayers deserve for the property. We must start following the law here in East Hartford.

The issue of the Burnside Redevelopment plan’s status came up as well.  Mr. Gentile goes on to claim that the Council must only review the plan and by approving past actions in the Redevelopment zone that satisfied the statute. Mr. Kehoe, to his credit, did not waffle on the issue and grabbed a copy of the Connecticut General Statutes which are conveniently in the Council Majority Chamber. A quick perusal of the relevant statutes verified that the Council is in fact required to re-approve or amend the plan at least every 10 years in order for the plan to remain in effect. The East Hartford Redevelopment plan, having not been re-approved or amended since 1997, is no longer in effect which puts us at risk as tax payers.

I have recommended that this situation be corrected immediately. With no plan in effect the Redevelopment Agency does not have the statutory authority to take the actions they have and they may not have the authority to enforce existing redevelopment deals.

Unfortunately, even after agreeing that the plan was expired the council voted to authorize the contract under the Burnside Plan. Insanity.

We need four things to happen here and quickly.

1st: The Redevelopment Agency needs to approve a replacement redevelopment plan for the Burnside Corridor and send it to the Council for approval.

2nd: The Redevelopment agency needs to secure an appraisal of the use value of 590 Burnside Avenue. Currently the Redevelopment Agency has absolutely no data to establish a use value on Daley Court and therefore cannot comply with the statutory requirement to sell for a minimum of the use value.

3rd: The Redevelopment Agency & Council need to re-approve this deal under the authority of the NEW development plan to ensure it is enforceable. Although I disagree with this particular development plan it is their prerogative to select it if they choose.

4th: Our town legal counsel must start being straightforward and strict with interpretations of the law. It might give the Mayor or someone else credibility to say the legal counsel said a particular action was ok, but that isn’t going to help should  we end up in court.

Thanks to Eric Thompson for asking questions. Glad you are back in there.

The East Hartford Redevelopment Agency approved the controversial Daley Court contract on Monday morning.

Read More

I managed to talk to Corp. Counsel Gentile in the hall where he stated his belief and that of 2 other unnamed attorneys is that the Redevelopment Agency under C.G.S. 8-137 is allowed to sell property below it’s current use value with the approval of the Town Council. He declined to discuss that particular issue further, perhaps wisely, since it is unlikely we would agree on the interpretation. Interestingly he also acknowledged my complaint from back in June that the the Burnside Redevelopment Plan is expired having not been renewed within 10 years of it’s approval back in 1997 as required by state statute. That means that the Redevelopment Agency no longer has power under the Burnside Ave. Redevelopment plan. It is void and without force which leaves us in a very dangerous situation of uncertainty in whether we can enforce the past Redevelopment Agency agreements which fell under the Burnside Ave. Redevelopment plan. It certainly gives great question to whether the Redevelopment Agency has any authority over this deal at all.

From the contract:

(i)
As an inducement to Redeveloper to acquire, redevelop and improve the Property, the Agency has agreed to sell the Property at a discount to present fair market value.

(a) ·1 the terms, covenants, and conditions of the Agreement, the Agency will sell the Property to the Redeveloper for, and the Redeveloper will purchase the Property from the Agency and pay therefor, the amount of Fifty Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($50,000), hereinafter called “Purchase Price”

Property Assessment as of 06/08/09: $490,870 difference = $440,870
http://brainflation.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/property-card-2009.pdf
I bring up that value because in the absence of any form of appraisal that is the most recent valuation data available. Federal standards now place FHA  appraisal validity at 120 days and in that light our officials ought not even consider a 7 year old appraisals as a reputable source of valuation.

From C.G.S. 8-137, emphasis mine:

The consideration paid for the sale, lease or other transfer of the real property shall be determined by the redevelopment agency, provided, if the cost or carrying charges of such real property to the redevelopment agency are greater than such consideration, the redevelopment agency shall first have specific authorization from the legislative body of the municipality for the sale, lease or other transfer at any lesser consideration, and the municipality may appropriate and authorize the expenditure of money to compensate for any portion of the difference between the acquisition cost of such real property and such sale, lease or other transfer price of such real property at a lesser consideration to a redeveloper, but in no case shall such sale, lease or other transfer price be lower than the use value of such real property.

Daley Court Redevelopment Contract