MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL & WPC AUTHORITY
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
A REGULAR MEETING of the City Council & WPC Authority was held on Tuesday, February 22, 2005, in the Council Chambers.
Those in attendance included Mayor Owen J. Quinn, Jr., City Councilors Thomas C. Jerram, Paul F. Samele, Jr., Marie P. Soliani, James F. McKenna, Paul W. Summers, and Drake L. Waldron, Corp. Counsel Albert Vasko, Public Works Director Gerald Rollett, City Engineer Edward Fabbri, Director of Elderly Services Nancy Gyurko, WPC Administrator Raymond Drew, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor David Rivera, and State Representative Anne L. Ruwet.
Mayor Quinn called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
MINUTES #020
On a motion by Councilor McKenna, seconded by Councilor Waldron, the Council voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held February 7, 2005.
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC #030
On a motion by Councilor McKenna, seconded by Councilor Jerram, the Council voted unanimously to open the meeting to the public.
State Representative Anne L. Ruwet extended an open invitation to the Council for dialogue on budget deliberations on the state level. She invited the Council to call her with any questions or concerns.
Representative Ruwet pointed out that a list of proposed sites for the new courthouse was available on the state web site. Mayor Quinn would be meeting with the state Department of Public Works at 9:30 a.m. on March 1 and the Council was welcomed to attend as well.
FORD VAN: ELDERLY SERVICES DEPT. #100
On a motion by Councilor Summers, seconded by Councilor Jerram, the Council voted unanimously to authorize the use of $8,354.00 (20% of a $41,770.00 matching grant from the DOT) from the city’s Vehicle Replacement Contingency Account to purchase a new Ford van with wheelchair lift from the Braun Corporation for the Elderly Services Department. Matter was already approved by the Board of Finance.
CARDINAL ENG. #150
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor Samele, the Council voted unanimously to authorize the payment of $546.25 from Sanitary Sewer Capital Improvement Fund #490 to Cardinal Engineering Asso., Inc. for engineering services on the East Main Street/New Harwinton Road Sanitary Sewer Improvements and referred it to the Board of Finance.
SMALL CITIES: SAFE HOMES #160
On a motion by Councilor Waldron, seconded by Councilor Jerram, the Council voted unanimously to authorize the payment of $1,050.00 from Small Cities Fund #250 to Safe Homes, Inc. for performing six risk assessments.
SMALL CITIES: IND. MAT’L LAB # 165
On a motion by Councilor Samele, seconded by Councilor Waldron, the Council voted unanimously to authorize the payment of $201.00 from Small Cities Fund #276 to Independent Material Testing Laboratories for testing done at the Sullivan Senior Center project.
SMALL CITIES: CITY OF TORRINGTON #170
On a motion by Councilor McKenna, seconded by Councilor Waldron, the Council voted unanimously to authorize the payment of $300.00 from Small Cities Fund #275 to City of Torrington for four limited title searches performed.
SMALL CITIES: L. WAGNER & ASSO. #175
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor Waldron, the Council voted unanimously to authorize the payment of $4,372.50 from Small Cities Fund #276 to L. Wagner & Asso. for professional services rendered from 8/1/04 through 12/31/04. To be paid upon receipt of drawdown #8.
SMALL CITIES: SPACE AGE COPY #185
On a motion by Councilor Waldron, seconded by Councilor Soliani, the Council voted unanimously to authorize the payment of $11.15 from Small Cities Fund #276 to Space Age Copy for shipping one package of original plans and specs to J. Alicata in regard to the Sullivan Senior Center project.
GORDON, MUIR & FOLEY #195
On a motion by Councilor Summers, seconded by Councilor Soliani, the Council voted unanimously to authorize the payment of $830.00 from Contingency to Gordon, Muir & Foley LLP for professional services rendered in the Southwest School matter and referred it to the Board of Finance.
TORRINGFORD SCHOOL PAYMENTS #215
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor Waldron, the Council voted unanimously to authorize the following payments from the Torringford School Building Fund #314:
Friar Asso. Inv #18 Contract Admin. Installment #5 $ 15,691.00
Test-Con, Inc. Inv #3148 Compact soil, rebar & concrete $ 5,527.00
Test-Con, Inc. Inv #3202 Lab analysis, inspect/observe $ 5,893.00
Test-Con, Inc. Inv #3255 Concrete, rebar & soil inspect. $ 7,130.00
Test-Con, Inc. Inv #3310 Concrete, rebar & soil inspect. $ 7,627.00
Test-Con, Inc. Inv #3371 Field testing of masonry $ 3,530.00
O & G Ind. Inv #00007 Services through 1/31/05 $1,138,974.00
Htfd Courant Inv #067258 Legal affidavit $ 703.00
RECOMMENDATIONS: STREET LIGHT #220
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor Waldron, the Council voted unanimously to consider recommendations from the Street Light Committee.
Councilor Summers, Chairman of the Committee, reported that they would be looking at options for a new street light on Pole 2630 on Oliver Street at its intersection with Amherst Street. The committee will also report back to the Council in the near future on the possible street light removal throughout the city.
No recommendations were made at this time.
Councilor Jerram said they were waiting for the city’s standing on the statute regarding the street lighting and its maintenance with Winsted in regard to the Weigold Road street light matter.
Mayor Quinn said he was still waiting for a confirmation and/or discussion from officials of the Town of Winchester.
BUS: DEPT. HEADS #285
On a motion by Councilor McKenna, seconded by Councilor Summers, the Council voted unanimously to consider business presented by Department Heads.
City Clerk Joseph L. Quartiero stated that his office was in the process of scanning all of their maps into the computer. All land records from Vol 854 to the present volume (915), have been scanned and can readily be seen on the computer. Maps will be also be available on the computer by street, by name, by plot, by subdivision, etc. Mr. Quartiero was looking to purchase a new scanner with this year’s $12,000.00 state grant.
City Engineer Ed Fabbri informed the Council that, originally, the Pinewoods Road reconstruction project was to run from Winsted Road to Route 8, however, the state had approved an extension and the project will now run from Route 183 to Winsted Road. A Public Informational meeting is scheduled for March 17 and work is scheduled for the summer of 2006. The city was scheduled to receive $1.6 million from the state for this project.
Mr. Fabbri indicated that the project near the Alciati property was completed, with the exception of placing some topsoil and seeding the area in the spring. All property owners in the area were pleased. The next phase will be to contact the Northwest Conservation District to see if we are eligible for grant funds to dredge the erosion that ended up in Besse Pond.
BUS: MAYOR & MEMBERS #460
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor McKenna, the Council voted unanimously to consider business presented by Mayor Quinn and members of the City Council.
Councilor Jerram thanked Mayor Quinn for the prompt, hand delivery of the budget on the day set by City Charter.
Mayor Quinn adjourned the meeting at 6:50.
PUBLIC HEARING #480
At 7:00 P.M., Mayor Quinn called the Public Hearing to order to obtain public input regarding its proposed Water Pollution Control Plan.
City Clerk Joseph L. Quartiero read the legal notice.
Public Works Director Gerald Rollett indicated that the purpose of the public hearing was to approve and adopt the Water Pollution Control Plan, which has been in progress for two years. It was reviewed briefly in Mayor Quinn’s State of the City address about a year and a half ago, reviewed once again about a year ago in the auditorium and a presentation on the final draft was done on January 24, 2005. The Plan delineates the capacity of both, the sewer plant and the sewer system, it draws a hard line around a sewer service area in the City of Torrington and its goal is to protect our infrastructure and assets. The plan has also undergone a year’s worth of discussions with various Land Use Boards, including the SMART Land Use Group who meet on a weekly basis, Planning & Zoning,
Inland Wetlands, etc. It has the support of the staff and it is Mr. Rollett’s recommendation that it be accepted by the Authority. The next step will be the submission of the Plan to the DEP, who will essentially approve it internally, put it on file, and make certain we follow it. Any possible revisions would entail a re-submission to the DEP for their approval.
Mr. Rollett introduced John Braccio and Keith McHale, representatives from Wright-Pierce, who made a brief presentation on the Plan.
Mr. Braccio indicated that his company had concluded the Waste Water Treatment Facility Evaluation and determined the necessary improvements that the Torrington plant would require to address waste water needs for the city over the next twenty years. Capital costs in current dollars to meet those needs would be approximately $27 to $28 million dollars.
Mr. Braccio indicated that the purpose of the Sewer Master Plan was to determine the amount of sewage that would end up at the treatment plant over the next twenty years and to determine how much sewage could
ultimately reach the treatment plant from a defined service area.
The purpose of the Sewer Master Plan was also to define the sewer service area, specifically, where will sewer growth occur and where will it not occur. That information was essential to determine the upgrades that would be necessary at the plant. A projection of population growth, where it would occur within the service area, and the flow that could occur from the growth also needed to be determined. Ultimately, they needed to determine the hydraulic limitations within the existing pipe lines to handle that flow and how to convey it to the treatment plant. The City has tremendous investment under ground at the present time, but it has finite limitations, and those limitations needed to be known.
With the help of city boards, they were able to define where the sewer service area should be. The intent of the defined area is also confirmed with the Office of Planning & Management, a state agency who defines within each community in Connecticut where they think sewer growth should and should not occur. If the city conforms with the OPM mapping and stays within the boundaries specified by OPM, it can qualify for clean water funds in the extent that it’s available for the funding of the upgrade of the waste water treatment plant. Favorable funding is available at the present time. The city
has five major interceptors that convey all the waste water to the treatment plant. The study conducted by Wright-Pierce was limited to four of the five interceptors. The fifth interceptor was done as a prior study and is presently at the DEP.
Mr. Braccio indicated that a hydraulic analysis of the system determines where the hydraulic problems are within the system. There are two components of flow: Sewage, and inflow & infiltration, also known as II, which is leakage into the system either by cracks in the pipes or manholes or by direct connections into the system from either storm drains, roof leaders, sump pumps, etc. For every gallon of II that comes into the system, it’s one less gallon of sewage capacity. They monitor what is actually happening and use the information to calibrate their computer hydraulic models. They also look at the maps and determine the size of the pipes, the slopes, etc., in order to determine the theoretical capacity of the system. During the installation of the meters, they are able to
look directly into the manholes to find any evidence of II and/or the condition of the pipes.
Mr. Braccio informed the Authority that Torrington’s treatment plant was licensed for 7 million gallons a day. Wright Pierce determined that, within
the defined service area, if we had full build out (80% build out) we would not have enough capacity without a major, very expensive upgrade, way beyond the proposed $28 million to stay within the 7mgd (million gallons per day) licensed capacity at the facility.
The treatment plant and the discharge license that Torrington possesses will not be able to handle full build out within that service area, let alone take in anything beyond that service area. This should be considered carefully. The goal when they evaluated the treatment plant was to stay at the 7mgd however, they couldn’t project Torrington’s population within the next twenty years.
Mr. Braccio informed the Authority that the main interceptor in the middle of the town was a hydraulic bottleneck and will become worse as flows increase. Approximately 30% of the manholes were showing some sign of leakage and/or surcharge. A prioritized list of the most suspect areas was created and they were able to identify the segments of pipe that will need to be repaired as growth occurs. An additional way to achieve more capacity is to identify and remove II sources.
Part of their evaluation included whether or not they could accommodate Woodridge Lake, which would call for the elimination of their treatment plant and all their flow would be conveyed to the Torrington system. Technically, it could be done and Wright Pierce would love to design it for Torrington. Accepting Woodridge Lake would reduce the capacity at the treatment plant that would otherwise be available for growth within Torrington. Should Woodridge Lake be accepted, Torrington will attain its limited capacity that much sooner.
Councilor Summers inquired whether Torrington would remain within capacity if it was to adopt the Sewer Master Plan as presented.
Mr. Braccio indicated that some aspects of the system wouldn’t be able to
handle the flow if Torrington achieved full build out (80% developed) within the service area.
Keith McHale said they were looking at the future development of the undeveloped areas and that was in line with the Torrington Code of 80% developed / 20% open space.
Councilor McKenna inquired about the projections for the future, based upon the development in the past twenty years and assuming the same rate of growth.
Mr. Rollett indicated that the present plan was their best projection for the future. He explained that the treatment plant’s average flow in 1996 was in excess of 90% of its design capacity. At that capacity, the DEP can order upgrades to the treatment plant. This was the eye opener that compelled Mr. Rollett to hire Wright Pierce to study the science of it. The Plan entails almost $30 million of potential expansion needs for both the capacity of pipes and the capacity of the plant in order to serve the area already delineated. The proposed Plan is the science needed to properly plan for the future. It is information that Planning & Zoning will have to look at very carefully as they continue to develop the City of Torrington, and it is a tool to know where we stand
today, and where we will be in twenty years as we move forward with large projects like the courthouse and the downtown renovation project.
Mr. Rollett reviewed the map with the Authority.
In addition to the flows, Mr. Drew explained that they had to deal with the organic and pollutant loads which also impact the treatment capabilities.
Councilor Jerram inquired what a change to the plan would do, in terms of our presentation to the state.
1440 Mr. Rollett indicated that they would have to update whatever calculations were involved, and look at its impact. Additional engineering and cost estimates would be involved. Mr. Rollett further indicated that there were capacity and treatment issues with the way the line was drawn at this time.
Mr. Braccio has brought to the city’s attention the fact that we can’t handle what’s in the red boundary. Knowing that information, we have to move forward.
1480
The Authority has the right to amend this plan at any time, once adopted. The Authority cannot ignore the plan and allow sewer service outside the boundary area without re-submitting the plan to the DEP because they will make certain the Plan is being followed.
Mr. Rollett’s recommendation was to adopt the plan as presented and stand firm with it. Any amendments including other areas could set a precedence.
WPC Administrator Raymond Drew said if allowances are made for growth outside the designated sewer service area without first evaluating the capacity issues that may be created by that growth, we would be opening ourselves up to potential problems. The plan does not try to limit growth, but rather to control the type of growth you want to occur and to what extreme you want it to occur in the best interest of the city as a whole, according to what our infrastructure can handle.
Councilor Jerram indicated that the city has seen successful developments off of Torringford Street and in the southwest part of the city near the
Litchfield line. He wanted to make certain that applications on file were considered when this plan was put together.
Mr. Rollett indicated that they looked at approved projects that they knew they had legal commitments to provide service. They went into this knowing they had problems because of the history at the treatment plant. They didn’t merely look at the largest area they could serve; their first shot was pretty much the area that exists today and, if the science showed that everything was good and there was plenty of capacity, they would have looked at what they could handle. Their first shot was that they couldn’t handle it any further.
Mr. Rollett explained that, if Woodridge Lake is forced by the DEP to come to Torrington and Torrington is forced to take it, whatever flow we take from Woodridge Lake will be flow that we can no longer develop within the City of Torrington, whether it’s industrial, commercial, or residential.
Councilor Soliani inquired why we couldn’t refuse to take Woodridge Lake if we couldn’t handle their flow? Why couldn’t we say “No.”
Mr. Drew indicated that the DEP was the ultimate authority to demand connection when they look at it as a health concern for water pollution in a centralized geographical area.
Mayor Quinn said they shouldn’t concentrate on Woodridge Lake because that hadn’t been ordered in the Plan.
Mr. Rollett indicated that none of the analysis included Woodridge Lake.
Mr. Rollett further stated that extending anything outside the area we presently have would have the same conclusion.
Atty. William Manasse, spoke for Atty. Samuel Slaiby who was in the hospital. He requested that the public hearing be continued so that Atty. Slaiby could make a presentation in regard to Greenbriar and sewers.
Atty. Manasse inquired when the city anticipated the build out to occur.
Mr. McHale said it was, in fact, beyond the point that they had calculated. They take information from OPM, and project it out to calculate it. The full build out would occur at some point beyond that, how far, they couldn’t guess.
Atty. Manasse explained that Greenbriar was in the southwest section of town and was originally a phase subdivision. All of the phases were approved, some of the phases did lapse but work is ongoing. They were anticipating approximately 60 to 65 units in the approved phases if it was built out, given the changes in the wetlands regulations. Given the numbers that were stated by Wright Pierce, (200 gallons per user per day) he estimated a 13,000 gallon discharge, or 2/10 of 1% of the sewer capacity from Greenbriar. His concern was that it was almost an inverse condemnation. If they take an R15 zone and eliminate the ability to hook up to the municipal sewer system, a 15,000 sq. ft. lot is not sufficiently large to allow on-site sewer disposal, or may not be allowed to. It seemed as
though, if the municipality was going to change the zoning, they might not need the municipal sewage hook up if it was up-zoned to R60. They were not following their master plan and they are going to eliminate the municipal sewer system in an R15 zone. This would have a significant detrimental impact on their client, financially.
Atty. Manasse pointed out that Litchfield had a right to use up to 150,000 gallons a day, and they used approximately 1/3 of it at the present time. The line was apparently large enough to handle that capacity, so it was evident to him that a potential 13,000 gallons from Greenbriar wouldn’t overtax the line.
He also pointed out that Besse Park and a cemetery would be the only two R15 zoned sections in town that would be outside the municipal sewer system. It wasn’t logical from his perspective. He believed that Greenbriar could be included within the service area without a significant burden on the daily flow, particularly if build out is beyond the twenty years. At some point in that period, the system will probably require additional upgrades, perhaps through some form of legislation.
Atty. Manasse indicated that his client had already upgraded the service lines
to the sewer system that serves the current build out phases at the specifications of the city’s Engineering Department, and at his own expense. Those houses are selling for approximately $300,000.00, so it’s definitely an up-scale area and an asset to the municipality. It was his belief that future development in Phases 3, 4, and 5 will be comparably priced.
Mark Greenburg inquired whether the Engineers knew that the only R15 drawn out of the sewer district included the largest subdivision in town that
had a filed phase map on the town records.
Mr. Rollett indicated that the land use group had discussed that during their meetings. Wright-Pierce was given a certain boundary to study to see if we could handle the flow, and the science showed that we couldn’t handle the boundary we gave them to look at.
Mr. Greenburg indicated that Wright Pierce should have been told that Greenbriar was a phased subdivision with a filed map on the town records.
He further stated that, in 1989, he paid over $250,000.00 to upgrade Hassig Road to the interceptor on Litchfield Street, which was not something he had to do but it was recommended that he pay to get the approval of a 221 lot subdivision. He had in his possession a letter from the WPCA that states it will service 221 lots. He felt the city should do some research on this matter. He said “I think it’s very unfair that, when you’re looking at four blocks of red, one is a cemetery, one is Besse Park, one is Greenbriar, which has been an outstanding member of the community for fifteen years. Apparently the engineers didn’t know that this line was cut right in between it.”
Furthermore, Mr. Greenburg said he had been paying taxes on 85 lots for seven years in the red area from which he received no benefit, except for having his sewers taken away.
From a land use standpoint, Atty. Manasse pointed out that there are some R15 and R10 zoned areas surrounding Greenbriar and the development on that scale is consistent with the existing patterns in development that are there. It wasn’t like they were trying to take an R60 and convert it to an R15. It was an R15. All they wanted was to be allowed to hook up to the sewers as they originally thought they could and once was approved for. They were not looking at a huge capacity, but merely 13,000 to 15,000 gallons a day. It was a small proportion of their total flow, and the interceptors appear to be sized appropriately, especially since Litchfield is only using 1/3 of their daily limit. If the interceptor in that area of town has to be re-sized, it won’t be because of the
13,000 gallons from Greenbriar.
Atty. Manasse requested the plan be modified to include Greenbriar in the sewer service area.
Mr. Rollett indicated that they would be meeting with Litchfield in regard to sewer servicing/capacity problems on Litchfield Street and they are looking at having a developer who is building a project in Litchfield replace some of the pipes in Torrington. They are going to use more capacity from what is allocated and the pipes can’t handle the load.
Litchfield pays Torrington according to how much flow they give us and they pay an annual payment based on how much flow they have reserved. Any payment on reserve flow goes toward the expansion of the treatment plant and bond issue. The annual payment is based on our current user charge system. Litchfield has been requested in writing to participate in upgrading the interceptor in areas that have constraints, which is estimated to cost $150,000.00. A meeting with Litchfield is scheduled for next week to discuss the matter.
Corp. Counsel Vasko explained that there were two distinct boards, including the WPCA which controls where the sewers are and Zoning. The WPCA has the authority to adopt this Plan with sewer avoidance in certain areas and at some point in time perhaps Zoning will need to be upgraded to conform to the Sewer Avoidance Plan. The Zoning Master Plan is basically advisory and doesn’t have any control over what the WPCA does. This is not an issue that needs to be addressed prior to doing the sewer avoidance plan.
Mayor Quinn asked Corp. Counsel Vasko if he was familiar with the Greenbriar phases and the status of the zoning applications.
Atty. Vasko said he believed what had been approved by Planning & Zoning had been built. It was his belief that some of the phases may have expired.
Mr. Greenburg stated that Greenbriar was originally approved as a full subdivision including 221 units, one of which was a day care center which was never built. During the construction from 1989 through 1995, issues arose in regard to on-site drainage. Calculations were re-hashed with Mr. Consentino, the City Engineer at the time, and, at the request of the City of Torrington, Greenbriar filed a phased subdivision map with the City Clerk. It included five phases, however, it didn’t include Nottinghill Gate, which is unphased. Phase one was Wimbledon Gate North, Phase two is presently under construction. Robin’s Way is part of that subdivision. Phase Three will have approximately 40 houses, Phase Four will have 35 houses, and Phase Five is on the other side of
Nottinghill Gate and part of the sewers. It has five lots and they are not excluded. The 85 original lots of the subdivision will whittle down to approximately 60 lots because of wetland reasons and setbacks which have changed in the past few years. The final portion of Greenbriar (Phases 3, 4, & 5) will include anywhere from 60 to 63 houses.
Mayor Quinn asked if that had expired at this point.
Mr. Greenburg said yes and no. Phase Five had expired at various times in the past three or four years. Phases Three and Four expired in 1996 although taxes were paid to 1998 as if they were lots, and Phase Five expired in 1998, and was part of a re-subdivision a couple of years later. All three phases have now expired completely, although they are still part of a phased master plan on file. New approvals would be necessary.
Mayor Quinn indicated that sewers were really the issue. Having sewers in the subdivision would be an economic factor for Mr. Greenburg. If sewers are not available, there are other ways he could build, (septics) but financially more expensive.
Mr. Greenburg indicated that building a one million dollar road for twenty houses would essentially be unbuildable. It would render the property valueless.
Mr. Rollett said it could be engineered, however, the economics of it wouldn’t be feasible. He stated that the lines in the Plan were drawn to where the sewers and service exists.
Having no further testimony, Mayor Quinn closed the public hearing.
ACCEPT FINDING OF SEWER MASTER PLAN #2700
On a motion by Councilor McKenna, seconded by Councilor Jerram, the Authority voted unanimously to accept the findings of Sewer Master Plan completed by Wright-Pierce (January 2005).
ADOPT WPC CONTROL PLAN #2740
On a motion by Councilor McKenna, seconded by Councilor Jerram, the Authority voted unanimously to table the adoption of the Water Pollution Control Plan with an effective date of 2/23/2005 and submit to State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection pursuant to Section 7-246(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes.
SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING #2750
On a motion by Councilor Jerram, seconded by Councilor McKenna, the Authority voted unanimously to schedule a Public Hearing for 7:00 p.m. on March 21, 2005 in regard to Wastewater Facilities Planning Study for the Torrington, Connecticut Water Pollution Control Facility.
ADJOURNMENT #2760
On a motion by Councilor McKenna, seconded by Councilor Waldron, the Council voted unanimously to adjourn at 8:02 p.m.
ATTEST: JOSEPH L. QUARTIERO, CMC
CITY CLERK
| 
