Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cmda Resolution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Middletown committee tables plan to join state redevelopment authority after questions on mayoral authority
Summary
The Economic Development Committee paused action on a resolution to join the Connecticut Municipal Development Authority (CMDA), citing concerns that the boilerplate language gives the mayor broad authority to enter agreements without explicit council sign-off; staff offered to draft clarifying language and the measure was tabled for further review.
The Middletown Economic Development Committee voted to table a resolution that would make the city a member of the Connecticut Municipal Development Authority, following sustained questions about language that appears to grant the mayor authority to enter memoranda and agreements without further council approval.
Chair (S1) opened discussion on the measure, noting the resolution’s Section 2 appears to permit the mayor’s office to enter “a memorandum agreement or similar agreements” to create development districts and take actions “including but not limited to” project steps. The chair said that reading leaves the council “totally out of the picture” and that he would not vote for the resolution “as presented.”
Brig (S3), the committee’s legal counsel, told the committee joining CMDA is voluntary and that membership itself does not obligate the city to any future transactions. Brig said the authority’s bonds would be issued by the authority and “would not be pledged against the city's full faith and credit,” and described membership as a step that would make the city eligible to pursue funding — counsel referenced a large funding pool staff estimated at about $60,000,000 — while any specific project would return to the council through separate agreements and reviews.
Planning staff Merrick (S2) explained the statutory concept of a housing growth zone: the council and planning commission would delineate an area where CMDA tools and flexible design standards would support housing development. Merrick said the downtown B‑1 zone would be a natural fit and that the process is sequential — the city must join, then create a housing growth zone, then apply for funding.
Several committee members pushed back on the resolution’s boilerplate language and asked whether property acquired or redeveloped under CMDA would be removed from local tax rolls or become state property. Brig answered that outcomes depend on the structure of any transaction and that the statute allows a range of arrangements (private ownership, public ownership, payments in lieu, assessment fixing), and that the CMDA is a quasi‑public agency distinct from a state department.
Staff (S5) said the resolution is boilerplate used statewide and that the state typically writes the execution clause to name the chief elected official; staff offered to draft clarifying language or prepare a follow‑up resolution that would require the council to approve agreements on a per‑project basis. “We’re not trying to remove any power from the common council,” the staff member said, adding that they could insert language to preserve council oversight.
Committee member (S6) moved to table the resolution for further drafting and review; the motion was seconded (S8) and the committee voted to table the item. The chair thanked Merrick, Brig and staff for attending and said the resolution will return to a future committee agenda with proposed clarifying language.
What happens next: staff will work with legal counsel and planning to draft clarifying language that preserves the council’s contractual or project‑level approvals; the item remains on the committee’s docket for further consideration.
