TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
MINUTES
TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOVEMBER 13, 2006
SOUTH WINDSOR TOWN HALL TIME: 7:00 P.M.
1. Call Meeting to Order
Mayor Streeter called the meeting to order at
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Mayor Matthew Streeter
Deputy Mayor Thomas Delnicki
Councillor Edward Havens
Councillor Kevin McCann
Councillor Tim Moriarty
Councillor John Pelkey
Councillor Cary Prague
Members Absent: Councillor Deborah Fine
Councillor Keith Yagaloff
Also Present: Town Manager Matthew Galligan
3. Public Participation
Before proceeding further, Town Manager Matthew Galligan said he wished to bring the Town Council up to date on was the receipt of a Grant for “cots and blankets” as a part of Homeland Security;” and asked for a moment for Director of Public Works Michael Gantick, and Pollution Control Superintendent Fred Shaw, to provide a demonstration of what these items looked like.
Mr. Shaw, referring to the “set-up” being put together by Mike Gantick, informed Council that these were some of the equipment that would be needed at the Town’s “emergency shelter.” According to the Superintendent, following the Town’s application for a Grant this Fall, it has received 120 cots, blankets, and pillows which could be used in an emergency shelter should the need arise. He said that the cots are well made; and the Town will be looking for more.
When asked where the cots will be stored, Mr. Shaw responded that they would be stored at the South Windsor Community House at 4 Corners.
4. Special Business
A. Discussion Item – Future Funding of the Sewer Treatment Plant
Mayor Streeter precipitated the report by informing the public that he had met a couple of weeks ago with the Chairman of the Water Pollution Control Authority, Joseph Carino, Town Manager Matthew Galligan, Public Works Director Michael Gantick, and Superintendent of Pollution Control Fred Shaw. At that meeting, he added, it was requested that a Special Work Session be held in order to discuss this subject.
Town Manager Galligan, before turning the report over to Fred Shaw, reported that the Town “has been fighting with the Clean Water Fund to appropriately fund some of the areas in Town needed for sewers. Out of six (6) existing pump stations, he added, four (4) of them have been done through this Grant funding method.
At the present time, according to Mr. Galligan, “the funds are slowing down; and we now left in a position of not know whether or not future funds are going to be forthcoming; or, are we going to have to do this on our own?” There is, he added, a very strong concern about this situation. He then turned the meeting over to Chairman Carino.
Joseph Carino, WPCA Chairperson, said that the Water Pollution Control Authority needed Council’s assistance. He then read into the record attached Exhibit A. Following this, he introduced Fred Shaw to continue the report.
Mr. Shaw pointed out that the present Treatment Plant was built in different stages—the first section being built in the 1960’s; the next sections in the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s; and early 2000. In each case, he added, the Town was very dependent upon Grants and loans from both EPA and the State DEP.
Currently, according to the Superintendent, the Plant is nearly 40 years old; and out of eleven (11) pump stations in Town, four (4) have been upgraded; with plans pending to upgrade the remainder through the “loan program.” However, he said, and not unique to any particular municipality, both the Grants and the loans have “dried up.”
4. A. (Continued)
Mr. Shaw further explained that the two sources of monies to the Clean Water Fund are the General Obligation Bonds--by which they provide the “Grant” monies; and through the Revenue Bonds, they provide the 2% loan. He added that the Town of South Windsor requires “both” the Grants and the loans in order not to have to pay for “improvements” out of the Town’s Sewer User Fees—and, he said, they will be significant!
The State has wavered on its commitment to the Clean Water Fund, he stated—and gave the example that between the years 1987 and 1999, the average funding level for the General Obligation Bonds was $47,500,000; however, from the year 2000 to the year 2007, the average has been a “negative,” -$7,500,000, per year.
During two fiscal years, according to the Superintendent, the State actually took money out of the Clear Water Fund—$18,000,000 in 2003; and, about $60,000,000 in 2004.
The State, according to Mr. Shaw, has a list of projects—about 134--which they prioritize according to “points.” This year, he said, the State would be doing “one” project out of the first five. Making the situation even more difficult, according to Mr. Shaw, is the fact that if you wait, the cost of construction goes up (as much as 6% to 8% a year).
Regarding the Town’s Treatment Plant project, Mr. Shaw stated that the Town should be receiving the completed designs within the next week or so. When first estimated, the cost was to be around $25,000,000; however, the Superintendent said that it is expected, now, that the costs will be considerably higher. The upgrading of the four pump stations is expected to cost approximately $2.5 million. Without the Grants and loans, according to Mr. Shaw, these significant costs, he said, would be passed on to the “users.”
Mr. Shaw stressed that these are problems that the Town cannot ignore. If it does so, the Town will be in violation of its “Discharge Permit” and have significant fines levied against it; and will have operating problems at the Treatment Plant. An important factor, he added, was that the date of complete failure of the Treatment Plant’s operations, should improvements not be made, cannot be identified with any certainty.
Mr. Shaw then went on to explain, in more detail, what was being proposed by the Treatment Plant design—such as an “upgrade” of what the Town already has. No addition to the Plant’s capacity is being proposed, he said.
4. A. (Continued)
Part of the “upgrade,” he added, involves meeting new (and more difficult to meet) State regulations brought about by the “discharge of nitrogen” from both Treatment Plants and non-point sources. “To meet new standards,” according to Mr. Shaw, the Town must “provide new equipment.”
Another problem of size, Mr. Shaw said, was the Plant’s “antiquated electrical system”—that could not be installed, today, because it would violate any number of different building codes. Upgrading the Plant, he emphasized, would improve its “reliability,” “safety,” and “operational efficiencies.”
Another consideration, he said, was “odor control;” and pointed out the Plant’s proximity to Main Street and the absence of the “luxury” of being far removed from a residential community. Mr. Shaw told the Town Council that the Public Works Department has been keeping the Main Street residents informed of the Department’s efforts to try to control odors better; and of the proposed “Treatment Plant Upgrade.” The last such meeting being on October 4 of this year. He said that the residents have been “very supportive.”
Returning, once again, to the question of State and Federal “funding” for these projects, Mr. Shaw said that South Windsor is not “unique” in this situation; that efforts have been made in recent months by a coalition of some organizations to get the Legislature to “look more favorably on increasing the funding for the “Clean Water Fund.” In recent years, he said, it had been at a $60,000,000 level; however, was down to $20,000,000 this year; and there was some talk that it was even reduced to $17,500,000.
Mayor Streeter, referring to a “draft” letter being proposed to be sent to the Governor and several other Legislators regarding the Clean Water Fund, informed Mr. Shaw and those others listening that it had been distributed to all the Town Councillors; and suggested several methods that might be employed to handle this effort. The Mayor then recognized State Senator Gary LeBeau who was present in the audience.
Senator LeBeau came forward to say he was present this evening because he recognized the problems associated with the Clean Water Fund and would be happy to work on it. He asked Fred Shaw if there was a “Federal
4. A. (Continued)
component” in terms of where the dollars are coming from. He thought that the “Clean Water Act” had originally been legislated by the Federal Government was a Federal legislation—and cited that in the early 60s and 70s there was a Federal component, particularly long the Connecticut River and its tributaries, of helping with sewage treatment which accounts for the River now being classified a “Grade B River.”
In response, Mr. Shaw informed the Senator that there are funds from EPA that have to be “matched” by the State. At one time, he said, EPA used to provide about 75% of the funding, the State would provide about 15%, and the local share was about 10%. Although, as he put it, “those days are gone,” Mr. Shaw said that there are matching funds; and in response to Sen. LeBeau’s question as to what those were “right now,” Mr. Shaw said the only information he had was that, in terms of Revenue Bonds, the State had about $147 million; but he was not aware of where the Federal funding was on this.
The Senator guessed that the reason the State lessened its commitment was because the Federal Government had lessened its commitment. The Senator then said he would ask that some research be done, and that he receive a little more background on “long-term trends in Federal and State funding over the last 20 or 30 years.
Senator LeBeau suggested another letter be sent to Connecticut’s two U.S. Senators and our Congressman that says “How about giving us a hand!” He pointed out that the Connecticut River flows through four (4) States—and empties into Long Island Sound, thus affecting two more states—New York and Rhode Island, to some degree—thus, making it a “regional” problem.
Mayor Streeter thanked Senator LeBeau for his presence this evening, and his offer of assistance at the State Legislature. The Senator, referring to the “draft” letter provided by Mr. Shaw, suggested that the principal “addressee” be Governor Rell—since she is the “leader” of the State of Connecticut and the one who would be putting together a budget which would, hopefully, include adequate funding for the Clean Water Fund. He predicted that there would be other Towns who would join in on this effort.
Deputy Mayor Delnicki suggested not only a letter be sent to our U.S. Senators and our local U.S. Congressman, but that the Town Council “draft” out a Resolution addressing this problem.
4. A. (Continued)
Sen. LeBeau then asked for the actual timeline regarding these letters going out to the Governor, or writing a Resolution. He asked for a couple of weeks for him and State Representative William Aman to get information on “funding trends,” and what has happened to the percentages.
Deputy Mayor Delnicki asked Mr. Galligan where CCM is on this issue. Mr. Galligan replied that CCM had put together a coalition including the Audubon Society, construction “unions,” etc. So many Towns, he added, are involved in this issue that “you are looking at billions of dollars.” CCM will be looking at this issue again. Mr. Shaw added that there was a meeting scheduled with CCM on December 8th at which the Town would, once again, bring up this serious problem.
Councillor Pelkey asked if there was separate fundings available for “Heritage Rivers?” Senator LeBeau responded that there was; however, he did not feel it was for Clean Water Funds; but more for bike-paths, accessibility, plaques, clean-up. He next asked Mr. Shaw if having a project on a “Heritage River” gives the Town any “extra points.” Mr. Shaw responded that he was not sure; but would look into it.
Councillor McCann said that his concern was that, unless the Clean Water Fund is fully funded, “prioritization” of the projects that get funded will continue. He asked how South Windsor could be sure that it won’t be left behind in that prioritization—that if it isn’t one of the “worst offenders” is South Windsor going to be “last on the list.” Sen. LeBeau said that, at this time, he did not have an answer to that question—that he had no idea how DEP prioritized. However, he would look into DEP’s current “criteria.”
Councillor Moriarty asked if there have been any changes in the last year or two with the State’s system of “nitrogen credits?” Nitrogen credits, according to Mr. Shaw keep going up every year for South Windsor. The Councillor emphasized that, a year or two ago, the “priority” didn’t seem to be “who was the worst polluter” but, rather, who was ready to go by having their “design” completed that counted. He asked Mr. Shaw if this strategy had changed at all with the bonding commission.
4. A. (Continued)
Mr. Shaw responded that at a time when the money was pretty much assured, that is what the municipalities were advised to do. However, when expected funding was not received—($60 million expected; $20 million received) for two consecutive years, this philosophy changed.
Mr. Shaw then explained South Windsor’s scheduled as it currently exists—the design phase should be completed within the next month; and the “final design” would be reviewed shortly thereafter. Following this, he said, it would then go to the DEP; and, hopefully, construction would begin during the summer of 2007.
Other questions from the Councillors followed regarding funding; the consequences of pump station failure; in-place backup procedures; etc. Mr. Shaw, in answer to a question explained that although the Plant and the pumping stations are all covered under the Clean Water Fund however, they are two separate projects. The pumping stations do not involve “grants;” however, they involve Revenue Bonds that have been set aside under “collection system improvements.” Separate applications are made; however, funding comes from the same source.
Councillor Havens predicted that, somewhere along the line in the near future, the Town may have to step in and take on some of the responsibilities such as funding the more important aspects of the Town’s sewer operation. The Councillor then asked what had become of the idea, years ago, to join the MDC’s sewer system. Mr. Michael Gantick, Director of Public Works, stood to inform the Council that, although this was explored as a possibility, it turned out not to be “cost effective.”
Mr. Gantick also suggested that the Town break these sewage treatment equipment problems down into smaller components in order to deal, financially, with their remedies. He began by suggesting that a small portion of the update could include the “electrical system” at the Plant was “antiquated.” The Plant, he added, was designed in the mid-1960s, and this was a major concern. He added, however, that the State and Federal governments are the Town’s “partners” and need to get “on board.”
More questions and remarks from the Council followed; together with general consensus that the letter before the Councillors be made more specific to whomever it was sent—the Governor’s Office, the State House and State Senate; and, of course to our Federal legislators on what they each can “bring to the table.”
4. A. (Continued)
This discussion item ended with the Mayor thanking Mr. Shaw for bringing all of this to the Council’s attention. He added that, following a consensus of the Council, he would work with Mr. Shaw on the “draft” letter, tailoring each to the various addressees. The letters would then be sent out, he said; and Council would await hearing from Senator LeBeau regarding the information he would be gathering.
The Mayor added that Council would try to set up a Resolution for the December 4th Town Council meeting—he felt that should be adequate time to receive input from Senator LeBeau and Representatives Aman and Christ. He thanked the Members of the WPCA , and Town staff, for their attendance this evening.
B. Discussion Item – Road Funding for Various Roads from “Surface
Transportation Program (STP)” (Requested by: Town Engineer)
Town Engineer Jeff Doolittle, after distributing the attached information, elaborated on its contents (see Exhibit B). However, before he could proceed, Councillor Pelkey said he needed to make certain that he had no “conflict of interest” in this topic, He asked if the area of Pleasant Valley Road being discussed included “Pleasant Valley Estates.” It was agreed that tonight’s discussion would be “general;” that no associate Resolution would be acted upon this evening; and that, in all likelihood it did not include the section of Pleasant Valley Road in question.
Mr. Doolittle explained that CRCOG, the Regional Planning Authority, periodically puts out solicitations for road improvement projects funded by Federal Funds from the Highway Administration and from State funds. The question is, he asked, which projects should we apply for. About $20,000,000 was available.
The Town Engineer said that he and staff have come up with three (3) projects that are good candidates for applications for funding—Avery Street, from Kelly Road, north, to Evans Crossing; with average daily traffic counts in the range of 6,000-7,000 vehicles per day; and the average speed for cars traveling on this roadway is between 45 mph to 48 mph. Vehicle accidents, he added, have been a criteria, and there have been 24 accidents in the last three years in this general vicinity; and with an area of between 2,000 and 3,000 feet of road that can be reconstructed.
4. B. (Continued)
Referring to road width on Avery Street, Mr. Doolittle said right-of-way width is normally about 50 feet; however, in this area, it would need to be formally established because the “existing” road width varies between 24 feet to about 30 feet—not consistent, averaging 26 or 27 feet. He guessed that the Town would probably be looking at a 30-foot road width.
The Town Engineer mentioned lack of drainage in this area, steep hills to negotiate, etc. He said that the Town would also try to minimize the impact on abutting properties for all these projects.
Continuing, Mr. Doolittle said that the second project was Pleasant Valley Road—that section from Ellington Road, east, to about Northview Drive—a length of about 2,500 from Ellington Rd. Again, he stated, that some of the same issues prevail with this road as with Avery Street—steep hills, poor drainage, establishment of a right-of-way.
The third possible project eligible for funding, according to Mr. Doolittle, is Sand Hill Road. He said the road is “in pretty good shape;” however, the pavement needs to be “rehabilitated.” In other words, he explained, the roadway, including the base, would not have be totally ripped up and reconstructed, and no new drainage would be required. However, he added, the Town would have to grind up what is already there; regrade it; and repave the road.
With regard to Sand Hill Road, Mr. Doolittle said there is a “significant accident record” for the intersection of Sullivan Avenue and Sand Hill Road—specifically 24 accidents in the last two years. In part, he said, it is because of the grade coming down the hill on Sand Hill Road toward Sullivan Avenue. The slope and curve of the road; and the fact that the road gets very slippery in this area when it gets wet, have added to the incidence of accidents. The repair work being proposed for Sand Hill, according to Mr. Doolittle, would allow the Town to do something to address those concerns without major changes to this road.
In summary, the Town Engineer relayed the fact that the Town can submit up to three (3) applications; and the maximum funding available for each Town, as determined by CRCOG, is about $2,500,000.
4. B. (Continued)
Since South Windsor would be competing with all of the surrounding Towns, Mr. Doolittle felt the Town would be “lucky if it got one Application approved.”
Questions and comments followed from the Town Councillors—including expressed concern regarding the “vehement” rejection, by residents, of a prior years’ proposal for reconstruction of Avery Street; and the need and the wisdom of conducting a Public Hearing on these projects—not only to meet the requirements of the Application but, further, to determine the acceptance/rejection of the proposals by the residents directly affected by these projects.
Mayor Streeter then asked if anyone in the audience wished to address this proposal. Mr. Robert Dickinson, 19 Birch Road, came forward to express his concerns about pedestrian access and safety on these roads—particularly following repairs or reconstruction that could accommodate “faster traffic.”
Mr. Dickinson suggested that, when discussing or planning these projects, the installation of “sidewalks” along these major arteries be considered. He pointed out that the Town of Manchester, in order to remove one obstacle for approval of sidewalks by residents in its Town, now assumes the responsibility of maintaining all its sidewalks in the same manner it does its roads—repair of sidewalks is no longer the residents’ responsibility.
5. Executive Session - None
6. Adjournment
At approximately 8:45 p.m., a Motion to Adjourn was made by Deputy Mayor Delnicki; seconded by Councillor Havens; and approved, unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia R. Brown
Clerk of the Council
Attmts. (Exhibits A. and B.)
| 
