Moving Sewage Treatment Plant, Step 1.
A bond for $13.2M would enable Middletown to "buy in" to the Mattabassett Sewer District. The council members took turns touting the historic nature of the vote, saying that this would finally allow the dream of closing the city's River Road sewer treatment plant. Councilman Dan Drew pointed out that the city did not have the option of doing nothing with respect to the sewer treatment plant, the city would either have to build a new plant (at a potential cost of $60M) or join the Mattabassett District.
All of the council members pointed to the potential for economic development of the riverfront land along River Road, once the existing plant could be removed. Mayor Giuliano said, "Nothing bad can come from this, only good things--environmental and economic." The Council members urged each other to educate voters about the importance of approving the bond in the November election.
If the initial "buy-in" bond is approved, there would be a subsequent bond referendum to pay for a pumping station and pipes to move the sewage north to the Mattabassett treatment plant. The "buy-in" bond would be paid for by all city residents (including those who do not use city sewer), under the premise that all residents will benefit enormously from removing the treatment plant on River Road. In contrast, only the sewer rate-payers would pay for the pumping station and pipes.
A third bond would be needed to expand the capacity of the Mattabassett treatment plant, this cost would be shared by all of the communities using that plant.
Road Maintenance Bond
Councilman Tom Serra emphasized that the city was in very strong financial health. Serra cited earlier comments from Finance Director Carl Erlacher, who said that city population and budget easily justified the issuance of significantly more debt than even these two large bonds. Erlacher estimated that the increase in debt service would add about $1.4M to the budget.
North End Parking Lot Funding Approved
The Council approved a bond of $550,000 in order to pay for the purchase of property in the North End, and to create a parking lot. The lot will be behind the new Community Health Center and Eli Cannon's, serving the former during the day, and the latter in the evenings, and other North End shops and restaurants as well.
Phil Oellette, owner of Eli's spoke about his commitment to the North End, not only through his ownership of Eli's but also his ownership of the Eli's building, which houses 10 studio apartments. He said that he is a partner in a new Cupcake Company which is looking to open in the North End. He said the company is calle NoRa, named after what he thought the area should be called (short for North of Rapallo), "We plan on changing the name of the area, with or without your permission." He said all current and future NoRa businesses would benefit from improved parking.
Oellette spoke glowingly of the Tine family, which owns a house which would need to be purchased and either moved or destroyed, to make room for the proposed parking lot. A representative for the Tine family strongly supported the parking lot. Oellette suggested that an aspect of the project be named in honor of the Tines.
Capitol Theater Demolition
The Council heard from the acting city attorney, Tim Lynch, that the Superior Court judge had reaffirmed the city's right to order the demolition of the Capitol Theater on Main Street, because it poses a safety hazard. The Council approved $300,000 in funds to demolish the theater if the owner did not comply with the court order.
Councilman Joe Bibisi asked Lynch if the theater has any historical significance, and Lynch responded that he did not know. Bauer asked whether the clear danger of the building obviated any historical review before demolition. Lynch responded, "I don't think so."
7 comments:
The Capitol Theater? Was it the building that collapse in the snowstorms this winter? Oh. Was it the building that collapsed in the recent earthquake? Oh. Was it the building that was blown over by the recent tropical storm? Oh. Glad to see two authorities on structural engineering, Bibisi and Lynch, giving their authoritative opinions about the building's safety.
What a brilliant statement: "Finance Director Carl Erlacher, who said that city population and budget easily justified the issuance of significantly more debt...". Does he run his family budget that way too? Run up the credit card debt?
Ed:
The city building inspector determined in January 2009 that the Capitol theater was unsafe. The owner did not dispute that the building was unsafe, but rather agreed to remove the building. When he failed to do anything about the condition of the building the city took the owner to court in 2010. There has now been a judicial determination that the building is unsafe, the owner has not remedied the unsafe condition or removed the building and therefore the city can demolish the building.
Are you suggesting that the fact that the building has not yet fallen down somehow proves that the building inspector and court are wrong and that the building is not unsafe? Do you have a reason to dispute the building inspector's qualifications or determination?
Obviously, all building that didn't collapse are structurally sound. Spot on logic.
David:
I guess you and I will not see eye to eye on the Capitol Theater.
First of all, I don't care what the judge says, unless he is a structural engineer. The judge is basing a decision on a contractural agreement.
John Parker, I trust. And I will concede that the theater is likely unsaveable. However, I've seen a lot of unsaveable buildings saved.
I don't think a structural engineering report has ever been made public.
And yes, the fact that it hasn't fallen, despite the elements, is a great argument that it is more structurally sound than is made out to be.
Finally, I suspect that town politics and the lust for parking has more to do with it than anything.
If it's going to come down, let's build something suitable in its place, not a bus turnaround.
Ed
I don't know anything about the structural soundness of the building, but is a bus turnaround the best that can be done to replace it? I thought people were working to make Main St. more attractive. Imagine what it will look like with a bus turnaround in that row. Remember all the excitement years ago when it seemed that the building was going to be replaced by an actual theater?
I believe the following will happen - either Mr. Salvatore will initiate demolition by 10/15/2011, or the City will start demolition on 10/16/2011. These dates have been stipulated by a Court ruling.
In either case, Mr. Salvatore remains the owner of the property, the only difference being that the City will place a lien on the property for the cost of demolition if they are compelled to complete the process.
What Mr. Salvatore does with the property remains Mr. Salvatore's business.
For the record, although the vote was unanimous, there were concerns over the Road Maintenance Bond. Councilman Klattenberg was concerned over the name of the Bond and the variety of asset classes put into a "Road Bond". I voiced technical concern over the oversight of the authorized work completion not having the desired documentation transparency (blah, blah, big yawn for the Council) and the super-obvious fact that we know this expense comes year after year after year, yet we borrow to do this, thereby incurring the expense of financing debt (a 10 year bond @ 4% simple interest adds 25% to the cost of the projects) and all the additional fees. Why do we burden the taxpayer with this additional cost (blah, blah, big yawn for the Council, the reporters, the bloggers, etc....)?
The borrowing costs for this bond over its lifetime will be over $4.5 Million, but blah, blah, blah, who cares? That's the way we have always done it around here.
Post a Comment