2011-2012 Budget Additional Analysis
2011-2012 Budget Book
2011-2012 Budget Detail
2011-2012 Budget Historical Comparison
2011-2012 Budget Revenue Historical Comparison
2011-2012 Budget Revenue
2011-2012 Form 1 & 2 – New Initiatives and Revenue
Budget Preparation Schedule
Capital Improvement Plan Narrative
Capital Improvement Plan
Capital Improvement Process
Capital Improvement Program Debt Limitation
Capital Leases
Fund Balance and Mill Rate Calculations
Mayor’s Budget Message
Mill Rate Calculation
Personnel-Salary Report
Prior Year Budget Comparison
Recommended Budget Summary
Summary of Existing Debt Service
Year Over Year Tax Comparison

The Democrats’ proposed reductions totaled $2,285,916 for a proposed mill rate of 33.81824.

The Republicans’ proposed reductions totaled $2,201,518 plus a plan to increase revenue by $50,000 by auctioning surplus town equipment for a proposed mill rate of 33.84615. The Republican plan shares many of the same cuts as the Democratic proposal and as a result proposed only $799,103 in new reductions.

Had the entirety of both plans been adopted the mill rate would be 33.55 which would still represent a tax increase greater than 5.9%.

I am convinced that a referendum is necessary here, even though under current Charter rules it is toothless. Perhaps the proper followup to a referendum would be to submit our own citizens’ budget to the Council and Mayor. We don’t need to get elected. We have the political courage to do right by ourselves and our neighbors.

2010-2011 Republican Budget Report

2010-2011 Republican Budget Proposal

2010-2011 Democratic Budget Proposal

It may not be their fault that the economy is upside down, but it is their fault East Hartford can’t remember what economic growth is. It is their fault that employee wages and benefits are bankrupting this town. It is their fault that the Board of Education spends more every year for a worse education. Where is the leadership?

I will give the Republicans some credit, they at least took the basic procedural step of moving to amend the budget this year, an action that has been conspicuously absent from past budget sessions.

I won’t give the Democrats any credit. The ball was in their hands and they decided the best thing to do was nothing. Both parties’ budget proposals were abysmal at best. Marcia LeClerc was entirely unknowledgeable and contradictory in her criticism of Eric Thompson’s  suggested removal of administrator raises (really? administrator raises?) and take back of administrator vehicles which in some cases go across the state and out of state every night. Her suggestion that these cuts can’t be done because these non-union employees are protected by union contracts removes any faith that I have that these people know what they are doing.

All told both parties proposed about 2.2 million dollars in cuts from the Mayor’s proposed 8.1 million dollar deficit. Unfortunately both budget proposals cut the same things making them almost identical. Neither proposal included any sign of political courage or desire to protect we the taxpayers. Neither proposal even looked in the direction of ensuring that the same problems driving this year’s budget won’t be back next year. The result, next year we will have a 6 million dollar shortfall from federal funny money (Thanks Bush & Obama), wage increases we can’t afford, benefit increases we can’t afford, and more capital expenditure requests for the Mayor’s pet project of turning Town Hall into the palace she clearly deserves (is there a sarcasm font?).

Hey, at least when we can’t afford birthday & Christmas presents for our kids or Thanksgiving dinner thanks to this 6.8% tax increase we can take them by Town Hall for a tour of the new granite curbing to show them where our priorities are.

Thank you East Hartford Town Council. Thank you Mayor Currey. Together you have ensured I have no faith in my government. This man does have faith in one thing though, referendum and initiative. I will sign the petition and vote for referendum and I encourage my neighbors to do the same.

If 2010 is going to go down as the year of political cowardice I can’t wait to see what 2011 will bring. In this meeting nobody wins the performance award. Nobody performed and everyone loses.

Part 2

I will work on getting the video up today. Unfortunately the crowd is not very audible, though no doubt the rounds of applause Councilman Thompson got for refusing to take this abysmal failure of a tax savings plan lightly will be audible.

Chairman Kehoe in an attempt to save himself the political punishment of letting an idea such as this even see the light of day couldn’t say enough that the meeting wasn’t for anything more than to talk about an idea. Interestingly I checked the public notices history and found that any time the Council has called a special meeting it has specifically been to act on an idea agreed upon behind closed doors.

The Council does not ever call special meetings to discuss ideas and plans it has no intention of acting upon.

Kehoe, at least own up and say you didn’t realize we’d stand up against you.

Councilman Don Pitkin also made a surprise visit for this meeting to defend the taxpayers and ensure any action the Democratic Majority attempted to take would have maximum opposition.

The proposal itself was an absolute joke. The salesman from WasteZero, the company which sells the bags and skims the profits, gave the hard sell with purely imaginary figures. The salesman told the Council that the Town would see 2.1 million dollars in new revenue from this program from a combination of reduced tipping fees and actually save taxpayers money. His assertions of course rely on total fiction. The fiction that the average East Hartford residence uses just 1.25 garbage bags per week. That’s right, WasteZero, the Mayor, Public Works Director Taylor… all of them went right along with this clear lie that we use 1 and a quarter garbage bags per week. It is clear where their motivation is. Even then the numbers don’t make sense.

Doing unscientific surveys I have found that most of the smaller households (1-2 people) are using 3 to 4 bags per week. In my own, a household of 4 we use 4-6 bags per week. No doubt you are somewhere in this 3-6 range as well. If the true average is about 4 bags per week East Hartford’s 16,400 trash pickup households will consume 65,600 bags per week at a cost of $82,000 per week or $4,264,000 per year. All to save 2.1 million on our taxes?

Councilman Horan in his classic “if you don’t like it tough” attitude gave a moving speech suggesting that East Hartford ought to be the leader in taxation and environmentalism for the hell of it. The highlight of his speech was were he suggested that we should tell him how to do the job he and his fellow democrats ran for election telling us they could do. He complained that although he received over a dozen emails nobody told him how to write the budget. That is your job Mr. Horan. Do it. His lack of leadership clearly showed when he suggested that we, the taxpayers, have a choice of a new garbage tax or a tax increase. Unacceptable.

The audience for their part were loudly approving to Horan’s surprise when he  suggested reducing payroll in government. To which Mr. Horan asked who to cut. I for one gave a nice summary of excess positions on the BOE side just about a year ago. They still exist.

As a result of our active citizenship this egregious plan will not be in the budget tonight. ( I hope… you never know) But I highly doubt this is the last we have heard of it. This has been a long time pet, one which is ill tempered and has bitten before in other towns, of this administration and they are not going to willingly put it down.

In my opinion Councilmen Thompson and Pitkin were the best of the night. It is not every meeting that the Republicans have the best showing, but this night was a Republican night. Correction, this night was the people’s night.

Edit: Here are is the video.
Part 1

Part 2

I can’t afford to pay another $390 per year in bag fees. Can you?

If you are as fed up with the runaway tax and spend policies of this administration as I am please attend the Special Meeting on this new Garbage Tax tomorrow in the Town Council chambers at East Hartford Town Hall at 7PM.

Feel free to protest in front of Town Hall before the meeting and bring your signs inside to show the Council we have had enough of irresponsible leadership.

Where:
East Hartford Town Hall
Town Council Chambers

When:
Monday, March 8, 2010
7:00PM

What:
Garbage Tax Protest

Can’t attend? Send the Council an email and let them know how you feel.
CLICK TO SEND COUNCIL EMAIL

More information:
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local-beat/East_Hartford_Trash_Bags_Hartford.html

http://www.brainflation.com/2010/03/05/town-council-calls-special-meeting-on-garbage-tax/

http://www.brainflation.com/2010/03/04/something-stinks-in-east-hartford-mayorpublic-works-propose-a-new-tax-to-pay-for-garbage/

http://www.courant.com/community/east-hartford/hc-east-hartford-trash0305.artmar03,0,7487374.story

The meeting will be on Monday, March 8th at 7PM,  directly against an important meeting of the Republican Town Committee at which the Republican Town Committee members will elect officers for the 2010/2011 term.  This will force the Republican Town Council members and other Republican Town Committee members such as myself to either not participate in an important RTC meeting or skip the special meeting and perhaps be excluded from an opportunity to prevent this new garbage tax from being implemented.

Perhaps the Council will reschedule. Hopefully.

Municipal elections are now past and Councils, Mayors, Boards of Finance, Selectmen and all of the other various forms of leaders we employ in our Connecticut towns are feeling a bit less politically squeezed and, as predicted by myself and candidates in other towns, tax increase proposals from these leaders will be coming fast and furious as they deal with falling revenues in the only manner they have the political fortitude to employ, tax increases.

East Hartford Mayor Melody Currey on Tuesday night presented her budget in what to this observer seemed a nervously defensive tone. No doubt she was well aware that a tax increase of over 9% would not be met with smiles and commendations.

To the credit of the Mayor each year the public availability of budget information has increased and this year is no exception. In fact, this year the Mayor has presented the most complete set of information yet. So Mayor, while I won’t thank you for raising my taxes, thank you for providing me with the details I need to know the how and why behind the increase.

I encourage you to review the budget information on the town website.
BUDGET INFO

Budget sessions continue with the Board of Education on Thursday night at 6:30, an all day session Saturday starting at 8:30 and a Monday night finale starting at 6:30. These can be viewed in person at Town Hall, or on EHCTV Channel 5 on Comcast.

Citizens should keep in mind the public hearing on Wednesday, March 3rd at 7PM where we can express our concerns about this proposal as well as plans to REDUCE spending proportionally to the losses in revenue rather than continuing spending unabated.

I am happy to say that I have heard from a Town Council member who is at least as outraged about this proposal as I am. Maybe there is hope.

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.

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.

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

It was revealed that the developers lied to the Council about the urgency of the property transfer approval. They had said they had a HUD application deadline in July and yet the application period was not even announced by HUD until September.

My FOI complaint against the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee was heard with an interesting twist. The decision has yet to be released. In summary, the Town argued that it had in fact failed to follow the law but that the remedy I asked for, nullification of the meeting, shouldn’t be implemented because the meeting didn’t matter. Odd logic, we’ll see if the FOI Commission agrees.

I and others have been trying to get further updates on the process since June but the Development Department and Redevelopment Agency have gone into full secrecy mode in response to the public scrutiny.

Another interested party received this email on Friday in response to an inquiry on the contract:

Subject: DALEY COURT AGREEMENT

From: <jwebb@ci.east-hartford.ct.us>

Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:28:39 -0500

To: <Fctopresident@aol.com>, <bfairbairn@ehmchm.org>

CC: <RPearson@shipso.com>, <jryan06@snet.net>, <DanielMDube@aol.com>, <Ddube@ci.east-hartford.ct.us>, <ellenmcccpa@aol.com>, <emccreery@hartford.gov>, <gamaine@gmail.com>, <MCurrey@ci.east-hartford.ct.us>, <ewolfe@sheldonoak.org>, <RPGentile@ci.east-hartford.ct.us>

Mrs. Kneip; 

I have received your request of November 5, 2009 // 10:35 AM to peruse
the draft contract regarding New Samaritan Corporation and Sheldon Oak
Central.  This contract is referenced on the Agenda of the Special
Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency scheduled for November 9 at 8:30 am.

The contract is still in draft form and terms are still being
negotiated.  Disclosure of the draft could impact the Agency's
negotiating stance for this sale.  Accordingly, pursuant to C.G.S. 1-210
(b) (i), we will not be releasing the draft. 

Sincerely,  

Jeanne Webb
Director of Development & Planning
Town of East Hartford
740 Main Street
East Hartford, CT  06108

phone 860-291-7303
fax   860-291-7298
cell  860-305-5757

e-mail jwebb@ehworks.com

website:   www. ehworks.com

The Redevelopment Agency has a special meeting for approval of a contract scheduled for tomorrow morning and yet as of Friday was still claiming the contract was a “draft” and exempt from public disclosure under FOI because it might impede their negotiating stance. Hmm, I thought they had agreed to a deal back in June which is why the Council pre-approved whatever contract might come down the pike. Maybe the Council shouldn’t be so liberal in approving contracts it hasn’t seen.

It also came to light that the Redevelopment agency has failed yet again to file its minutes in a timely fashion. The 10/21/09 minutes were just published on 11/06/09. Considering the money Mr. Jeff Currey, as clerk, gets for the responsibility, $100 per meeting,  you’d think it wouldn’t be such a problem.

The minutes had this to say:

MOTION by Mr. Ryan, seconded by Mr. Maine that on a recommendation from Corporation Counsel and in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes, the draft version of the agreement pertaining to 590 Burnside Avenue will not be released to the public until a final agreement is approved by the Redevelopment Commission.

APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY

Why do they feel the need to hide this transaction from further public scrutiny? You decide.

I’d still like to know how the Redevelopment Agency can approve this sale for 50,000 and still be in compliance with CGS 8-137. There has been no appraisal done, other offers for more money were received and the town assessor just assessed the property at much higher than the selling price.

From CGS 8-137:

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 re-developer, but in no case shall such sale, lease or other transfer price be lower than the use value of such real property.

I hope with all sincerity that Councilman Thompson will be more vocal this term and the addition of Sue Skowronek will mix things up.

Thank you Joe and Carolyn Kronen, as the campaign chairman and treasurer respectively, you have been an indomitable force of knowledge and motivation. Your unwavering support and dedication will not be forgotten. Your talents are indisputable.

Eileen Powers, you are easily one of the most driven and charismatic persons I have had the pleasures of working with. Through pure force of personality you seem to conquer obstacles with ease that others couldn’t even approach. I look forward to your continued efforts to make this town the shining emblem of reform it is destined to be.

Susan Kniep, it was my pleasure running with you. Even though our political affiliation is just a few months old we have had a natural alliance over these past years. As our government has failed us in its duty of fiscal conservatism and allowed rampant nepotism and political influence peddling to take root in East Hartford you have consistently defended the taxpayer while others have been conspicuously absent. I will see you in the Town Council chambers.

Pete and Lois Gero, your behind the scenes work and support could not be replaced by a dozen volunteers. Pete’s daily calls of support and speculation upheld my spirits in the most fatiguing moments of the campaign and Lois’ generous offering of her time and good spirits on the phones and the internet truly made the difference.

To our supporters, volunteers and donors we are greatly indebted to you. Your kindness, support and generosity is the fuel which drives us on in our endeavors. We couldn’t do it without you.

Congratulations to those candidates who won election and re-election. I have a new and deeper respect for the process of seeking political office. It is no light task and certainly no light responsibility. I hope that this election will inject new energy into the governmental bodies of East Hartford and inspire a more critical process of thought and action.

Melody,

It has been just over 2 weeks since I delivered 37 pages of supporting documents for my public hearing testimony to your office. Have you made any progress into your investigation regarding my testimony? I am particularly interested in the legal process followed in disposition of the property.

I recently received documents from the Town Council Office in response to an FOI Request which clearly demonstrate that the method used to dispose of the policy is not in accordance with Section 10-19 of the town ordinances. In light of this I would appreciate it if you would issue a recommendation to the Town Council that they rescind the motions approving the property transfer and giving pre-approval to a sales contract which were approved on June 16th, 2009 and recommend that the Investgation & Audit committee investigate the process employed by the Town of East Hartford in disposing of town owned (taxpayer owned) property.

The entirety of the FOI documents can be found here:

http://brainflation.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/foi-docs.pdf

Jon Searles
(860) 930-4149

Also I sought an update on the development status from Jeanne Webb. This is the update:

Jon - Our developer is waiting for the HUD NOFA to be announced.  As
soon as it is announced, they will be putting an application together.

We do not move to final disposition on Daley Court until all criteria
for the development have been met.

In the mean time, we have extended their developer status until February
1, 2010 or until the HUD application is approved, which ever is the
earlier of the 2 dates.

We do not have any scheduled meetings in the summer and will hold our
next meeting on September 16, 2009.

I received a rather thick stack of papers from the Town Council Office yesterday in reply to my FOI request. As expected the FOI demonstrates that the legal process for the town to dispose of town property was ignored while the town made up their own process as they went along.

At the bottom is a rather large PDF (180 Pages) which comprises the entire packet I received. I encourage you to review it. It contains the RFPs that went out in 2006 and 2008 as well as responses. The rest consists of various communications, memos and meeting minutes regarding Daley Court. Also there is one lone set of minutes evidencing the approval of the Burnside Avenue Redevelopment Plan from back in 1997.

To summarize how the law was broken the following procedures required by 10-19 are evidenced not to have been followed:

The Mayor did NOT recommend the disposition of Daley Court in writing.
The Council did NOT refer this recommendation to the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee.
The Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee did NOT determine whether to seek bids or negotiate directly.
The Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee did NOT issue an RFP.
The Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee did NOT publicly open RFP responses.
The Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee did NOT bring all the bids along with a recommendation to the Town Council.

What did happen is that the development department in conjunction with the Redevelopment Agency decided they wanted to dispose of Daley Court which as evidenced by Jeanne’s own communications with the Mayor was NOT owned or controlled by the Redevelopment agency which means the redevelopment agency had no authority to dispose of the property or issue bids. The Redevelopment Agency referred their RFP to the Town Council who referred it to the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee who approved it, something they had no authority to do.

In fact, the Redevelopment Agency doesn’t even have the authority to take the Daley Court Property because the Burnside Avenue Redevelopment Plan doesn’t appear to have ever been re-approved by the town council. State law is clear that a redevelopment plan expires after ten years if not amended or re-approved. The plan expired in 2007.

http://cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap130.htm#Sec8-127.htm
(c) (1) The approval of a redevelopment plan shall be given by the legislative body. The plan shall be effective for a period of ten years after the date of approval and may be amended in accordance with this section. The legislative body shall review the plan at least once every ten years after the initial approval, and shall reapprove such plan or an amended plan at least once every ten years after the initial approval in accordance with this section in order for the plan or amended plan to remain in effect. With respect to a redevelopment plan for a project that is funded in whole or in part by federal funds, the provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to the extent that such provisions are prohibited by federal law.

What’s really interesting is that the RFP response by Sheldon Oaks is not the project that was approved by the Redevelopment Agency or the Town Council. In fact the original response by Sheldon Oaks is easily not the best proposal received. How is that Sheldon Oaks was able to change their project and acquisition price AFTER the RFP? The Council never voted to negotiate with any bidder so how was it that negotiations were made? Was any other bidder given this same consideration?

There is only one thing for the Council to do now. They must rescind the motions approved and immediately refer this issue to the Investigation and Audit Committee to determine why nobody followed the law and why the Chairman of the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee, Mr. Bill Horan, didn’t insist that the law governing the actions of his committee be followed.

FOI DOCS

Angela,

I would appreciate your assistance in providing the the following records in accordance with the requirements of the FOI Act.

1) A copy of any written communication from Mayor Melody Currey to the East Hartford Town Council or it’s subcommittees regarding 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590  Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court.

2) A copy of the agenda and minutes of the East Hartford Town Council meeting at which Mayor Melody Currey’s written request to dispose of 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590 Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court was referred to the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee.

3) A copy of any appraisal dated 2006 or later of 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590 Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court which was acquired by the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee

4) A copy of any written communication, memo, minutes or agenda from 2006 or later addressing an appraisal or whether to acquire an appraisal of 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590 Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court.

5) A copy of any minutes, agenda, memo or communication of the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee in which the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee determined whether to seek bids for, or negotiate directly with a buyer for 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590 Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court.

6) A copy of any public notice of a request for bids on 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590 Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court from the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee published in a newspaper.

7) A copy of the minutes and agenda of the meeting of the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee at which the committee opened bids for 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590 Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court.

8) A copy of the minutes and agenda of the meeting of the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee at which the committee approved a recommendation to dispose of 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590 Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court to one of the bidders, reject all bidders and submit another request for bids or negotiate with another person.

9) A copy of the minutes and agenda of the Town Council meeting at which the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee submitted the bids for 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590 Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court or other written memo or communication evidencing a submission of bids on the property to the Town Council.

10) A copy of any emails to or from the Town Council, its subcommittees, clerk or members referencing 582 Burnside Avenue, 590 Burnside Avenue or Daley Court.

11) A copy of the agenda and minutes of the Town Council meeting at which the Burnside Avenue Redevelopment Plan was last amended, approved or renewed.

If any of these requests can not be met because the information does not exist please indicate this.

Thank You,

Jon Searles
51 Spaulding Circle
East Hartford, CT 06118
(860) 930-4149

A return receipt indicating that Angela opened the email was received at 8:47AM 07/16/09:

Your message

  To:      Attenello, Angela
  Cc:      Currey, Melody
  Subject: FOI Request - Information on Daley Court
  Sent:    Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:30:05 -0400

was read on Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:47:44 -0400

A response was received shortly thereafter at 8:48 AM on 07/16/09:

Your request has been forwarded to the Council Chair.

Angela Attenello
Town Council Clerk

07/06/09 10:22AM

I have been informed by Paul Roczynski that hard copies will be
furnished to my office in the near future.  Thank you.

Mayor Melody A. Currey
(860) 291-7200
Town Hall
740 Main Street, East Hartford, CT  06108
mcurrey@ci.east-hartford.ct.us
www.ci.east-hartford.ct.us

All e-mails received or written at this address are subjected to the
Freedom of Information rules and regulations.

Today I filed 37 pages of the documentation I posted on the 22nd of June with the Mayor’s office along with the following letter.

Jonathan Searles
51 Spaulding Circle
East Hartford, CT 06118
July 6, 2009

Mayor Melody Currey
Town of East Hartford
740 Main Street
East Hartford, CT 06108

Dear Melody:

Attached are thirty seven pages of supporting documentation for my public testimony of June 16^th 2009 regarding the Daley Court property disposition.

No position on the Daley Court property transfer has been taken by the East Hartford Republican Town Committee and as such this is not an EHRTC issue. In the future any requests or questions you or the Town Council may have regarding my testimony or documentation should be communicated to me directly. Neither EHRTC Chairman Paul Roczynski nor the EHRTC have been involved at any point with my research, testimony or follow up on the property transfer and as such Mr. Roczynski is not a proper avenue for questions or communication on this issue.

Please distribute this letter and attached documentation to the Town Council and any other interested parties.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Searles
jsearles@underdeposit.com
(860) 930-4149

The arrogance of the Board of Education, particularly Chairwoman Mary Alice Dwyer Hughes, in using unarguably vital pieces of the high school experience to manipulate funding and avoid the serious restructuring in the education budget that they were tasked with this year should offend us all as taxpayers. Instead of seeking out true long term savings the Board of Education created an instant crisis by putting Music, Sports and Honors classes on the chopping block. It only takes 5 minutes of thought to realize that the Board of Education would never have gone through with this plan had they been called on their dirty bluff. They have to be elected this year too after all.

The Town Council for their part had the forethought to plan for a potential state budget crisis and put aside 2 million dollars to make up the difference in the event of a state funding shortage. Not only did the BoE fail to make the meaningful cuts needed in the budget but they demanded this 2 million dollars of reserve funds and redirected the blame for their failure onto the Town Council by ginning up misplaced outrage arguing that it’s the lack of the 2 million dollars of reserve funds that is responsible for the cuts in these core programs. Mary Alice Dwyer Hughes took the position of ringleader and lead arm twister.

As bad as this strong arm manipulation by the BoE was I just can’t help but feel the Council is more to blame for it than the Board of Education. Marcia LeClerc gave a concise sound reason for the funds being placed in reserve. The state may come up short and the reserve funds are a necessary safety. She then made a logical leap that I couldn’t follow. She and the rest of the council supported giving the funds to the Board of Education based on the recommendation of the Mayor despite the fact that exactly the same unknown budget conditions existed that made the reserve funds necessary to begin with. What happens if the the funding doesn’t stay the same? I guess it’ll be an “oops, who could have known” moment on the council.

Worse is that the BoE ended up with a million dollar surplus from the last fiscal year. This means two things.  First, despite complaining last year that funding was inadequate we paid them a million more than they needed. Second, with the 2 million reserve and 1 million surplus combined the BoE won’t even need to follow through with many of the cuts it already made. Our Town Council has utterly failed us in this issue by failing to hold the BoE to any kind of fiscal restraint in this recessionary period and failing to protect us from a possible state funding shortfall. A responsible council would have called out the political stunt on the 16th for what it was and sent the BoE back to their budget books to decide if they really wanted to campaign on cutting music, sports and honors.