Council Approves Water Line For Middle Gate School

By Jan Howard

The Legislative Council on Wednesday unanimously approved a resolution for an appropriation of $500,000 for design and construction of a water main extension of United Water’s system to the Middle Gate School.

The council members also voted unanimously to authorize the Board of Selectmen to call a town meeting regarding the project. The selectmen are expected to set a town meeting date at their meeting June 7.

The Board of Selectmen and the Board of Finance unanimously approved the appropriation at their meetings on May 27. The project was unanimously approved by the Board of Education on March 2.

Prior to the Legislative Council’s vote, First Selectman Herb Rosenthal explained that the Board of Selectmen had initiated the appropriation, instead of the Board of Education, because most of the water line extension would run along town property until it reached the school.

He said an update of the engineering estimate determined that the estimate of $500,000 is still appropriate.

Mr Rosenthal said that up to June 30, the water line is ranked second on a list of projects to be considered by the state’s Bonding Commission. As of July 1, the town drops to third on the list if it does not submit its application for funding by a June 25 deadline. Even at third on the list, however, the project would still be “within fundable projects,” he said. “It’s ranked high in the priority list” of about 20 projects.

He explained that the project must receive all town approvals before being placed on the Bonding Commission’s agenda.

If the bonding were approved, it would provide for a low-interest loan of approximately two percent for 20 years. Mr Rosenthal said Ron Bienkowski, the school board’s business director, is preparing an application for him to sign.

Prior to the Legislative Council’s vote, discussion centered about how the cost of the project had been determined. Chairman Will Rodgers raised the question as to why the project was not put out to bid prior to being submitted for town approvals. “Once again we would be the bad guys if we turned it down for bids,” he said.

Member Peggy Baiad said, “I would hate to see it bumped, and we lose our spot” [on the Bonding Commission list]. “It’s a project that should be done.”

Richard Recht questioned what would be the consequences if the project were to go from second to third as a result of soliciting bids first.

Board of Education Vice Chairman Lisa Schwartz said she did not know if going from second to third would affect approval of the project since it would still have a high ranking.

Mr Rosenthal said the project would have to be bid at some point. He said if the bid came in over the $500,000 approved, the Board of Education would have to come up with the funds to make up the difference.

Mike Iassogna questioned why the project was being considered for town bonding versus the loan. Mr Rosenthal explained that the resolution authorizes application for drinking water fund money, but temporary bonding may be required before the loan is approved. If the town did not receive approval of the state loan, the project would have to be funded entirely through the town.

“We are setting a precedent here based only on an engineering study,” member Tim Holian said. “It may be no harm, no foul,” he said, adding, however, “It’s bad policy and bad precedent.”

However, council member Joe Hemingway noted that bidding the project should have been mentioned when the project was first proposed.

Mr Rosenthal told council members that the water line extension “is a fairly straight forward project.” Because of the sandy nature of the soil along the route of the project, he said no ledge should be encountered that would bring about additional costs.

In response to why bids were not sought previously, Ms Schwartz questioned why the Board of Education would have bid the project following the Legislative Council’s earlier unanimous defeat of the water line proposal.

“We’d all be better off with better communication,” she said.

Despite what appeared to be some lingering questions about bidding policy, the council members went on to approve the appropriation.

During the Board of Finance’s meeting on May 27 Mr Bienkowski said the project would be constructed within the next fiscal year. Following town approvals, he said the project would be on the Bonding Commission’s agenda in either August or September. He said he does not see a problem with the project being approved for the low-interest loan.

If the project were to be more than the $500,000 approved, Mr Bienkowski said a special appropriation would be requested. “The loan can be adjusted,” he said. “It shouldn’t be a problem.” He said a donation by United Water of $50,000 for pipe is included in the $500,000.

In November of last year the Board of Finance had reinstated the water line as the number one priority in the five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). In February, the Legislative Council approved the CIP with the water line remaining as the top priority.

The water line, originally proposed for the CIP for the 2005-06 fiscal year, became an issue late last year because of continuing water problems at the school and other water-related issues, such as the need for a new well, replacement of water tanks, and expiration of a permit for a uranium backwash system. Bottled water has been supplied to the school since last fall.

In July 2003, the water line connection was submitted by the Board of Education to the Board of Finance as one of three capital school projects proposed for a town meeting vote. Later, the Board of Finance narrowly approved the project in a 3-2 vote, with one member absent. The Legislative Council then voted 10-0, with two members absent, to reject the project. Following that rejection and following additional information regarding the project, the water line was reinstated as a priority item in the CIP for fiscal year 2004-05.

The $500,000 appropriation for the design and construction of the water line would include engineering design fees, plans and specifications, rights of way, easements, construction costs, testing, inspection, resident representation services, site work, construction contingencies, and administrative, printing, legal, and financing costs related to the project.

During the Board of Finance and Legislative Council meetings, resident Peter Vodola spoke in favor of the extension of the water line. Laura Buzzanca and Amy Cameron spoke in support of the project at the Legislative Council meeting.

Ms Cameron urged cooperation, noting, “We all need to work together for the betterment of all who live here. I hope all the people come to the town meeting.”