Representative Town Meeting (RTM) - Minutes - 08/03/2020

PHONE: 860-442-0553
www.waterfordct.org
FIFTEEN ROPE FERRY ROAD
WATERFORD, CT 06385-2886
MINUTES :
REPRESENTATIVE TOWN MEETING : _
ZOOM Access Only — Waterford Town Hall us
Regular Meeting
August 3, 2020
The August 3, 2020, Moderator Thomas Dembek called the Regular Meeting of the Representative Town
Meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLE CALL
PRESENT: Greg Attanasio, Michael Bono, Jennifer Bracciale, Timothy Condon, Thomas J. Dembek, Susan
Driscoll, Steven Elci, Timothy Fioravanti, Nick Gauthier, Paul Goldstein, Kathleen Kohl, David Lersch,
Richard Morgan Richard Muckle, Liam O'Leary, Theodore Olynciw, Sally Ritchie, Michael Rocchetti (7:21
P.M.}, Danielle Steward-Gelinas, Robert Swansen, Baird Welch-Collins.
ABSENT: April Cairns, Valerie Metivier, Miriam Furey-Wagner.
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: First Selectman Robert Brule; Chair of the Board of Education Craig
Merriman; Chair of the Board of Finance Ronald R. Fedor; Selectman Elizabeth Sabilia.
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS ABSENT: Selectwoman Jody Nazarchyk.
ALSO PRESENT: Town Clerk David L. Campo; Town Attorney Robert Avena.
AGENDA ITEM C — June 1, 2020 Minutes
MOTION by Driscoll, seconded by Muckle, to accept the June 1, 2020, Regular Meeting Minutes.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Unanimous.
AGENDA ITEM D — CORRESPONDENCE (See Attachments}
An item was received from Planning Director Abby Piersall entitled, “Proposed Changes to the
Waterford Code of Ordinances Chapter 12.08 Concerning the possession and drinking of alcoholic
beverages in town parks and recreation areas. .
An Item was received from Planning Director Abby Piersall entitled, “Proposed changes to the Waterford
Code of Ordinances Chapter 15.6, Blighted Premises”.
_ An ttem was received from Town Attorney Rob Avena requesting an amendment to the Waterford Code
of Ordinances Chapter 2.5 — Ethics Commission.
Moderator Dembek stated issues would be discussed under New Business
AGENDA ITEM E - PUBLIC COMMENT (See Attachments)
Three items were received for public comment from the following: Mary Childs, Helen Kwasniewski,
Chris Venditti.
AGENDA ITEM F - COMMITTEE REPORTS
None
1 RTM Minutes 08/03/2020

AGENDA ITEM G - LIAISON REPORTS
Thomas Dembek gave a brief update on the progress of the Municipal Complex.
Richard Muckle gave a brief update on the status of the Long Range Fiscal Planning Committee.
Danielle Steward-Gelinas gave a brief update on the status of the Education Committee.
AGENDA ITEM H — BUSINESS ON THE CALL
CALL ITEM 1 — Body Cameras
PRESENTATION: Chief of Police Brett Mahoney.
MOTION by Driscoll, seconded by Welch-Colins, to approve a recommendation from the Board of
Finance for an appropriation of $11,850 from the Contingency Ll# 10121-59010 to Capital Project
Account 32921-55864 (Body Cameras).
VOTING IN FAVOR: Unanimous with one member abstaining. (Morgan)
CALL ITEM 2 — Revaluation
PRESENTATION: Assessor Paige Walton.
MOTION by Driscoll, seconded by Welch-Collins, to approve a recommendation from the Board of
Finance for an appropriation of $259,300 from the Capital and Non-Recurring Designated Ll# 20501-
57639 — (Revaluation).
VOTING IN FAVOR: Unanimous.
CALL ITEM 3 — IT Learning Boards — End of Life
PRESENTATION: BOE Director of Finance Joseph Mancini.
MOTION by Driscoll, seconded by Welch-Collins, to approve a recommendation from the Board of
Finance for an appropriation of $155,287.12 from the Capital and Non-Recurring Designated LI# 20560-
57822 — (IT Learning Boards — end of life), based upon its consistency with the Capital improvement
Plan.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Unanimous
CALL ITEM 4 —IT Virtual Desktop Main Processor
PRESENTATION: BOE Director of Finance Joseph Mancini.
MOTION by Driscoll, seconded by Muckle, to approve a recommendation from the Board of Finance for
an appropriation of $139,125 from the Capital and Non-Recurring Designated Lit 20560-57827 — {IT
Virtual Desktop Main Processor), based upon its consistency with the Capital Improvement Plan.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Unanimous.
CALL ITEM 5 — Replace DVR Security Camera
PRESENTATION: BOE Director of Finance Joseph Mancini, Information Technology Director Ed Crane.
MOTION by Steward Gelinas, seconded by Driscoll, to approve a recommendation from the Board of
Finance an appropriation of $30,000 from the Capital and Non-Recurring Designated Li# 20560-57808 —
(Replace DVR Security Camera), based upon its consistency with the Capital Improvement Plan.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Unanimous.
2 RTM Minutes 08/03/2020

CALL ITEM 6 ~AHEPA Tax Abatement
PRESENTATION: Town Attorney Rob Avena.
MOTION by Driscoll, seconded by Muckle, to approve a recommendation from the Board of Selectmen
to approve a request from AHEPA 250-II Inc. of 95 Clark Lane, Waterford, for a five (5) year extension of
their Tax Abatement agreement to end on June 24, 2024, together with two five (5) year options
thereafter.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Unanimous.
CALL ITEM 7 — Waterford Beach Park Improvements
PRESENTATION: Recreation and Parks Director Brian Flaherty.
MOTION by Muckle, seconded by Goldstein, to approve a recommendation from the Board of Finance
for an appropriation of $150,000 from the FY21 Capital and Non-Recurring Designated Ll#20537-57854
and be moved into account 20537-57781, for the Waterford Beach Park Improvements.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Unanimous.
MOTION by Olynciw, seconded by Goldstein, to designate the approved $150,000 as emergency
legislation allowing the town to forgo the 15 day waiting period.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Unanimous.
CALL ITEM 8 — School Security
PRESENTATION: BOE Director of Finance Joseph Mancini, Superintendent of Schools Thomas Giard.
MOTION by Welch-Collins, seconded by Goldstein, to approve a recommendation from the Board of
Finance for an appropriation of $100,000 from the Capital and Non-Recurring Designated LI# 20560-
57842 — (School Security), based upon its consistency with the Capital Improvement Plan.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Unanimous.
NEW BUSINESS:
MOTION by Condon, seconded by Attanasio, to move the subject “Proposed Changes to the Waterford
Code of Ordinances Chapter 12.08 Concerning the possession and drinking of alcoholic beverages in
town parks and recreation areas” to the Public Health, Recreation & Environment Standing Committee
of the RTM.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Unanimous. .
MOTION by Muckle, seconded by Condon, to move the subject “Proposed changes to the Waterford
Code of Ordinances Chapter 15.6, Blighted Premises” to the Public Works, Planning and Development
Standing Committee of the RTM.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Unanimous.
MOTION by Driscoll, seconded by Welch-Collins, to move the subject of amendment to the Waterford
Code of Ordinances Chapter 2.5 — Ethics Commission.
to the Legislation and Administration Standing Committee of the RTM.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Unanimous.
MOTION by Olynciw, seconded by Welch-Collins, to move the subjects cited in the letter received for
Public Comment from Chris Venditti to the Public Protection and safety Standing Committee of the RTM.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Unanimous.
3 RTM Minutes 08/03/2020

MOTION by Olynciw seconded by Welch-Collins to amend the motion to recommend to the Public
Protection and Safety Standing Committee to research the use of an Ad Hoc Committee to study the
issue.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Unanimous.
Town Attorney Avena notified the body there may be a need for a special meeting later in August or
early September in regards to a roof at The Eugene O’Neil Theater Barn.
RTM Member Driscoll reminded BOE officials that quarterly financials are due. Superintendent Giard
said they are available and will be sent to the members.
MOTION by Muckle, seconded by Goldstein, to adjourn at 8:34 P.M.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Unanimous.
ia Submitted,
David L. Campo, eng
Waterford Town Clerk
4 RTM Minutes 08/03/2020

FIFTEEN ROPE FERRY ROAD WATERFORD, CT 06385-2886
.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Thomas Dembek, Moderator, Waterford Representative Town Meeting
FROM: Abby Y. Piersall, AICP, Director of Planning and Development
DATE: July 21, 2020
TITLE: Proposed Changes to the Waterford Code of Ordinances Chapter 12.08 Concerning the
possession and drinking of alcoholic beverages in town parks and recreation areas.
This request is to consider the potential to allow the possession or drinking of alcoholic beverages at
recreational facilities during special events approved by the Board of Selectmen. Alcohol is currently
prohibited at Town facilities. This change would enable events such as concerts, fundraisers, or festivals
to include the sale and consumption of beer or wine. The change would not enable possession of alcohol
at school properties or on beaches.
Changing this Ordinance is a key step in reducing restrictions on the range of events that can be held on
town properties. The addition of carefully planned service of wine or beer can help broaden participation
in Waterford events and draw new attractions to Town. Enabling sanctioned alcohol consumption in
public places supports ongoing efforts increase the frequency and diversity of dynamic and vibrant events
in Waterford. Events like dinners at the historic Jordan Green, summer concerts at the Waterford Beach
Park, or craft beer and wine tasting at the Farmers Market could be permitted if the Ordinance is changed.
As proposed, the change would only allow beer and wine to be available as sanctioned on a case-by-case
basis by the Board of Selectmen.
Section 12.08.040 currently reads:
The possession or drinking of alcoholic beverages in any town park and recreational area,
including Waterford Beach, is prohibited.
Proposed language for 12.08.040 is:
The possession or drinking of alcoholic beverages in any town park and/or recreational
area is prohibited, except as provided below:
A. Possession and drinking of beer and wine may be permitted at locations and times
as approved by the Board of Selectmen. In no case will the possession and drinking
of beer and wine be allowed on the sand or dunes of any beach.

FIFTEEN ROPE FERRY ROAD WATERFORD, CT 06385-2886
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Thomas Dembek, Moderator, Waterford Representative Town Meeting
FROM: Abby Y. Piersall, AICP, Director of Planning and Development
DATE: July 21, 2020 4 ao
TITLE: Proposed Changes to the Waterford Code of Ordinances Chapter 15.6, Blighted Premises.
This request is to ask the Waterford Representative Town Meeting to consider the potential modifications
to the existing Blight Ordinance. The current Ordinance became effective in April of 2017. Since that
time, three individuals have held the position of Blight Enforcement Officer, and all have noted similar
concerns about certain elements of the Ordinance.
The intent of the Blight Ordinance was to provide the Town with a straightforward administrative tool to
address properties in poor condition. After working with the current Ordinance, several issues have arisen
that should be addressed. These include:
1, The structure and presentation of definitions and characterization of blight.
The Ordinance currently combines descriptions of blight with general definitions. These
- sections should be clearly separated to eliminate confusion about what constitutes blight.
2. The process limits the ability of the Blight Enforcement Officer to effectively work with residents
who will voluntarily comply, and can unintentionally lead to very high fines.
Under the existing ordinance, fines begin to accrue from the date the Officer sends a
Notice of Blight Violation. Procedurally, the Town receives a complaint and after an
inspection to verify the blighted condition of property, sends a violation notice in
accordance with the Ordinance. Many property owners will receive the notice and call the
Officer to create a blight abatement plan. If the owners fail to fully complete the plan in
the time specified, fines are calculated from the date of the original notice.
3. The property owner being cited for blight may appeal a decision of the Blight
Enforcement Officer, but there is no mechanism in the Ordinance for the person making
the complaint to appeal.
The Blight Enforcement Officer makes a professional determination at the time
of the site inspection as to whether or not the property is blighted. Since 2017,
multiple cases have illustrated that persons making the complaint may not agree
with the Officer when a determination that blight is not present is found. Staff
suggests reviewing an option to create a committee that would set fines and
address any disagreement a complainer has with the decision of the Officer.

To remedy these issues, it is suggested that the Blight Ordinance be referred to committee for
further consideration and potential modifications. The Planning Director, Blight Enforcement
Officer, and Town Attorney are currently working on a draft of the Ordinance to present for
committee review.

Attorneys-At-Law
Robert A. Avena
Raymord 1. Buibesult, Jr, 
July 27, 2020
James P. Benrymnan
Michael A Blanchard
Erie W. Callahan
Michael P. Carey.
Richard 8. Cody Via email: Thomas,j.dembek@dom.com
Thomas Dembek, Moderator
Joba A. Collins, Ht .
Jeanette M. Dowte Representative Town Meeting
; Town of Waterford
Eileen C. Duggan
nome. 15 Rope Ferry Road
yan P. Fogo
° Waterford, CT 06385
Theodore W, Heiser
Fefficy W. Hill RE:
Carolyn P. Kelly
Kristi. Kelly Dear RTM Moderator Dembek:
Nicholas F. Kepple
Robert B. Keville On behalf of the Town Ethics Commission, please find attached a clean copy
sition K. Miller of a proposed amended Ethics Code Ordinance along with a marked ‘revision’ copy of
Roger T Seully the existing ordinance. Please assign this amended ordinance proposal to the
Robert G.Tukey appropriate standing committee at the next RTM meeting in August for its
Kyle Zens consideration.
In Memoriam
Ardsow J. Brasd
James F. Breasan é
Jones} County Robert A, Avena
1 Paice Gag, IH Town Attorney .
Michael V. Sage oy
Matthew Shafter : i
Max M. Shapiro RAA/pmn . po :
Chacles J. Suleman Enclosures to rm i
Thomas B. Wilson 4
Ls ©. Woo cc: Dave Campo, Town Clerk !
: cA :
Of Counset 4 oo
Hinda K. Kimmel
Jay B, Levin
Richard A. Schatz
A Tradition of Innovative Solutions
Suisman, Shapiro, Wool, Brennan, Gray & Greenberg, P.C.
2 Union Plaza, Suite 200 * P.O, Box 1591, New London, CT 06320
Phone 860-442-4416 ¢ Fax 860-442-0495 * www.suismanshapiro.com

David Campo
From: Mary Childs <childsmm22@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2020 1:06 PM
To: David Campo; Mary Childs
Subject: public comment for RTM
Hello Mr. Campo, I would like to request that this message be shared as a public comment at the next meeting
and that the RTM members receive a copy of it.
To the Waterford RTM, My name is Mary Childs and I am writing to you as a parent of 4 children who live in
Waterford and as a resident of this town for a total of 37 years. I have recently sent letters to the Superintendent
of Schools and to the First Selectman and Selectwomen. As elected officials, you have a new call to accept.
While racism and actions that are meant to oppress others can be out loud, I am asking you to consider looking
into other forms of oppression. These subtle offenses are within our community and our public systems.
At your recent meeting where final budgets were decided, it was clear that the Police Department was supported
as that budget was passed with no cuts and with relatively little comment or discussion. Equally clear was the
message to the town about it's youngest residents as the Board of Education budget was significantly cut. This
cut, while substantial, was not reopened for discussion. Understand that the message this chain of events sends
is that more value is being placed on our town department that punishes by protecting and serving versus a
department that educates, supports, and elevates our community.
What is the RTM doing to work on personal biases, justice reform, systemic racism, and other difficult but
necessary areas of work? You put our money where your mouth is and I would like to know what your next
steps are. We need to challenge the status quo in our community and I suggest that instead of giving nods to
budgets based on party-line consensus or past practice, you consider the positive impact that a budget will and
will not have for our entire community that continues to be more and more diverse.
Thank you for your time. We all have work to do.
Sincerely, Mary Childs
4
cm yaa
5
of

Comment to RTM Meeting on August 3, 2020 at 7:00 pm.
_ From: Helen Kwasniewski
Item 6 To consider and act upon recommendation from the BOS to approve
request from AHEPA for a 5 year extension of their tax abatement.
[ would like this board (RTM) to STRONGLY say NO to this 5 year extension
with 2 five year option.
The reason is: All SENIORS do not get a tax abatement break which we should!
Seniors have to make life choices like food vs medication vs paying taxes vs power
bill. Seniors have a life style that they are accustom to or want but don’t have. The
way that the Town of Waterford is going and giving certain groups special or
preferred status we will be bankrupt or with high mill rates which we cannot afford
either. I strongly believe that AHEPA which is own by the Greek Church can
afford they taxes and should support the community that they are in.
Waterford Senior Services provide there van(s) to AHEPA at no cost to them but a
huge added expense to the town.
Please do the right thing and REFUSE this tax abatement.
Thank you. ony
Respectfully, bss
Helen Kwasniewski SO eS

a Christopher Venditti
443 Sipple St.
PHB: 2 Oceanside, CA 92058
(860) 287- 4644
07/27/2020
Rob Brule
First Selectman
Town of Waterford
15 Rope Ferry Rd.
Waterford, CT 06385
I’m writing you today with a few concerns that | have regarding public safety within the
Town of Waterford. As of now, | have not resided in town for about 7 years due to Active Duty
Military orders, but | do still pay property taxes, and | keep a special interest in local issues
because many of my family members are residents (mother, sister, nieces, and nephews).
The first topic | would like to bring up is the overall lack of fire protection within the
Town. | have a unique perspective on this issue because I’ve been a member of Waterford Fire
Engine Co.1 since 2009 but have not lived in town since 2013. | don’t believe anyone can deny
that the number of incidents the town fire services respond to is decreasing, but we can all
agree that volunteer participation is at an all-time low. It’s my understanding that more fulltime
professional firefighters have been added to the payroll in recent years, and the stations and
hours they work has been restructured. With that in mind, | find it very interesting that the
town thought it was acceptable to have no fire coverage from 0200-0600 daily. If there’s
anything that being an Infantryman in the United States Marine Corps has taught me, it’s that
you cannot predict when you'll need to be ready to fight and work you schedule around that,
but rather you need to maintain the highest state of readiness possible. | feel we as a Town are
lacking here.
Just last year on October 22, 2019 at 0445 a town resident had his life cut short due to
this lack of fire protection. The incident took place less than 1 mile from Waterford Fire Engine
Co.1. The first piece of fire apparatus was driven by the bunkman, and he could not adequately
perform the initial functions of being the first due piece by himself.
These functions include:
e Scene size up — Confirm or deny initial reports of fire, confirm location of
fire, confirm location of water supply, position the vehicle in an
advantageous location for its function, confirm or deny if anyone is
present in the structure, identify entry and exit points, identify locations
of possible victims, *ensure adequate resources are on the way”, direct .
those resources until an INCIDENT COMMANDER assumes the role.
e {nitial entry and search — search for fire and victims
© Initial fire attacks — advance the first hose line and attack the fire.

All of these functions should be taking place nearly simultaneously, but you tell
me how long it would take you, BY YOURSELF. Now put yourself in the shoes of
the homeowner who’s being overcome by smoke and heat. We cannot afford to
put that much stress on our firefighters and our residents due to a lack of
manpower. We are making an already bad situation worse.
| bring this up because even though we are staffing 2 firefighters in town from 0200-
0600 currently, it’s not enough. These hours are also not part of their contract so theoretically
they could be cut at any time. | challenge you as the First Selectman to answer this question- Is
the reason for not having better fire protection money, or a lack of understanding? The
Waterford Police Department has been advertising a string of car break-ins on their Facebook
page for what feels like months now, which is a great way to remind residents to lock their
doors. But does a large amount of car break-ins mean we add 2 additional officers to an
overnight shift on overtime? Is the cost worth the benefit? Are you familiar with the Kansas City
Preventative Patrol Experiment? This was a year-long study conducted by the Kansas City,
Missouri Police Department to see if they could make a correlation between visible police
presence and crime, and fear of crime. The conclusion was that whether the city was having
police proactively patrolling an area or staying out until called in (reactive patrolling) had
significant effect on burglaries, auto thefts, larcenies, robberies, and vandalism — crimes
traditionally thought to be deterrable. ;
| say all of that to say this, if we as a town are willing to ADD 2 officers to a shift due to
car break ins (property damage and stolen goods) which is proven to not stop the crime, how
many more CITIZENS need to DIE for us to add adequate fire protection for the overnight
hours?
The concerning thing for me is that this lack of regard for residents when it comes to fire
protection isn’t a one-time thing in Town. In fact, it’s starting to become normal, which is not
acceptable.
Next | would like to talk about what it means to have leadership present. The Police
department is staffed to have a Sergeant on every shift. Why is that? I’m sure your answer will
have something to do with having a high level of accountability at all times and degree of
tactical expertise ready to respond to any situation at a moments notice. Is the fire service any
different? Not only do they never have leadership present (Waterford Fire Engine Co.1 hasn’t
had a fire officer (leader) respond to an emergency call since October 2019), but now the
firefighters are forced to make up for this by using manpower needed elsewhere on the
fireground. Referencing back to my initial functions on the fireground, the following should be
handled by the incident commander - Confirm or deny initial reports of fire, confirm location of
fire, confirm location of water supply, confirm or deny If anyone is present in the structure,
identify entry and exit points, identify locations of possible victims, *ensure adequate resources
are on the way’, direct those resources in, send necessary notifications to dispatch.
- Why does the Police Department get leadership and the Fire Department gets
Volunteers who don’t have to have the same level of training as the firemen they “lead”
(we use that term loosely)?
- Why do you think it’s ok to let a failing system continue to fail?
- Have you ever coached a team without captains?

In closing, [have many issues with the way tax dollars are being spent, particularly when it
comes to public safety. My mother, sister, brother-in-law, three nieces and nephews live in
town, and | fear if something were to happen in their home that at least one of them is liable to
not make it out. I’ve already instructed them to give the address for our neighbors up road who
live in the City of New London if something happens because they'll respond with an 16 man
crew within minutes (made up of 12 firefighters, 3 lieutenants*, and a battalion chief*). The
same crew that has bailed Waterford out recently for their lack of manpower. Offering $7 per
call will not make these “volunteers” just appear, and if it does, they won't be better trained
than the professional firefighters. | look forward to hearing from you, Mr. Selectman, as well as
a representative from the Towns Public Protection and Safety Committee. | can send a hard
copy of this email if needed.